WI Communists take over all of Korea in 1950

USA might allow for Japan real army. And Japan is probably even more powerful economic power in East Asia.

And more Koreans suffer under Kim Dynasty.
 
USA might allow for Japan real army. And Japan is probably even more powerful economic power in East Asia.

America has always pushed for Japan to get a "real" army. The issue is that the Japanese people, for the most part, don't want one. WWII really discredited the idea of warfare with the Japanese public, and they figure, hey why bother when America is bound by treaty to defend us anyway? A unified Korea might encourage the Japanese to change their mind, but I doubt it.

Also this would be a major blow if anything to the Japanese economy. IOTL the Korean War was a huge boost to Japan, who had been struggling to recover from WWII. ITTL Japan will take much longer to recover and the LDP might have a harder time consolidating power.
 

Cook

Banned
The global economy is significantly weaker; South Korea is the eleventh largest economy in the world, and its rise generated an enormous amount of demand for raw materials over the last thirty-five years.
 
America has always pushed for Japan to get a "real" army. The issue is that the Japanese people, for the most part, don't want one. WWII really discredited the idea of warfare with the Japanese public, and they figure, hey why bother when America is bound by treaty to defend us anyway? A unified Korea might encourage the Japanese to change their mind, but I doubt it.

Yep, the Japanese were responsible for Article 9. The US pushed for the establishment of a "Police Reserve", it's expansion, and then the establushment of the SDF. This was due primarily to occupation forces being sent to Korea. If we presume no US intervention in Korea, then either the US keeps the occupation forces in Japan and likely finishes the occupation in a better way or withdraws all together.

Also this would be a major blow if anything to the Japanese economy. IOTL the Korean War was a huge boost to Japan, who had been struggling to recover from WWII. ITTL Japan will take much longer to recover and the LDP might have a harder time consolidating power.
The economy will hurt. As for the LDP, it will depend on the POD and the reasons for why the US/UN didn't get involved.
 
It is likely that the US would push for Japanese rearmament because of the need for additional forces to defend Japan. I believe that US intervention in Korea would happen so as to send a signal to the Russians and the Communist Chinese that aggression would be resisted.
 
Does it makes a difference if the US actually does try to stop them as IOTL but fails? For example the Pusan perimeter falls? Is this a more plausible POD than no attempt to intervene at all?
 
And more Koreans suffer under Kim Dynasty.

Assuming the Kims are still in power. A unified Communist Korea and no perpetual stand-off against the south throws up plenty of butterflies. For one, Kim Il-sung was able to use the failure of the Korean War to purge a lot of his political rivals, such as Pak Hon-yong. Without the perpetual siege mentality Korea is unlikely to be as totalitarian as OTL, and would probably undergo destalinisation and a degree of liberalisation. You also wouldn't have the devastating effects of the Korean war on both sides of the border, or the subsequent militarisation of Korean society.
 
Andrei Lankov, a (Russian) North Korea expert based in the south had a piece a few years ago speculating on what would have happened if the North had won. He speculated that the Kims would have lost power, and that N. Korea would look more like a normal Communist country. It would probably have opened up to a greater degree than the north has IRL, and would probably have living standards well above present N. Korea but much lower than OTL S. Korea. (Similar to Vietnam today.)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/II08Dg03.html
 

ben0628

Banned
Presumably there is no US intervention to stop this from happening.

Explain how please. You would need a pod before 1950.

Does it makes a difference if the US actually does try to stop them as IOTL but fails? For example the Pusan perimeter falls? Is this a more plausible POD than no attempt to intervene at all?

If the US intervenes, South Korea cannot fall. This has been discussed in several threads over the past several months. The Pusan Perimeter was most likely not going to fall (North Korean Logistics were stretched to the limit and they were running out of available reserves for the offensive). Even if the Pusan perimeter falls, it doesn't matter. A new perimeter will be formed right outside of Pusan (which will NOT be broken since North Korea will not have the strength to do so). Not only that but the Inchon offensive will still happen as in otl which forces the North Koreans to retreat anyways.

So here's the deal when it comes to the Korean War. If the US intervenes, North Korea by itself CANNOT conquer the entire peninsula and even if it managed to break the Pusan perimeter, they'd still be driven back due to the Inchon Offensive. China will not intervene unless North Korea is getting its ass kicked (as in otl). Once China does intervene, there is no backing out by the US and they will be in it to win it (but won't be able to due to overwhelming Chinese manpower, although China won't be able to win because of US air superiority and better trained/supplied troops). Long story short, a stalemate in Korea in pretty much inevitable.
 
Note that the JSDF is a "for real" military and has been since the 1954 Self-Defense Forces Act.

This. While on paper, the JSDF is 'non-military' and is only for defence of the Home Islands... The GSDF is bigger and better equipped than many European armies and has one of the world's more advanced main battle tanks (Type 10); the MSDF is the fourth-largest navy in the world and has some very advanced surface vessels and subs; and the ASDF would give any attacker a fairly bloody nose. And the SDF regularly trains with the American military - to the point that the MSDF's sailors have more actual time at sea than PLAN sailors. Their only real weakness is power projection beyond Japan.
 
No Samsung, Hyundai or LG. Consumers would be worse off due to less competition and lower technology compared to OTL.
 
Last edited:
Assuming the Kims are still in power. A unified Communist Korea and no perpetual stand-off against the south throws up plenty of butterflies. For one, Kim Il-sung was able to use the failure of the Korean War to purge a lot of his political rivals, such as Pak Hon-yong. Without the perpetual siege mentality Korea is unlikely to be as totalitarian as OTL, and would probably undergo destalinisation and a degree of liberalisation. You also wouldn't have the devastating effects of the Korean war on both sides of the border, or the subsequent militarisation of Korean society.

I was just reading through this thread and was gonna say this. I agree entirely. Although there is the possibility of Korea going Maoist, I see a Khruschevian Korea as a more likely result after Stalin's death.
 
Top