WI: Kennedy or Johnson Dealt with North Korean Crisis

In the 1960s, the Korean War was still in the relatively recent past. In the 1960s, there was crisis involving North Korea over the course of 1966 to 1969. The DMZ Conflict was relatively low key, and American focus was elsewhere. As it stood, the 1960s were a time of many major crises: Berlin, Laos, Cuba and Vietnam, in addition to fear of Red China getting the bomb (which they did in 1964). And that does not touch on global crises more outside of US focus, such as Algeria, Indian and Pakistan, and so on. The United States navigated those crises successfully, except for becoming mired in Southeast Asia. Given our recent history as an obvious inspiration for this type of discussion, what if the Kennedy and/or Johnson administration, in that long list of crises, had had a problematically, dangerously aggressive North Korea and serious trouble on the Korean peninsula?
 
And yes, part of this is focus on Korea in lieu of emphasis on Vietnam, and the potential of a Second Korean War. Not to say that is the entire point: we avoided a war in Laos, Cuba and Germany under the Kennedy/Johnson administration. We could avoid a war in Korea, even if it got as tense as the rest. But it is food for thought. Or even Vietnam and Korea as wars. Fun.
 
One way is the Pueblo restart the war in 1968, just days away from the Tet Offensive. So LBJ will have to deal with NK rushing over the DMZ, AND the VC kicking America's ass in front of the Public.
 
One way is the Pueblo restart the war in 1968, just days away from the Tet Offensive. So LBJ will have to deal with NK rushing over the DMZ, AND the VC kicking America's ass in front of the Public.

Alternately, we could also have that delightful incident in 1969 where the Norks shot down one of our EC-121s over the Sea of Japan and killed 31 American airmen.

OTL, Nixon chose not to respond to that - under another President, things might go somewhat differently.
 
Alternately, we could also have that delightful incident in 1969 where the Norks shot down one of our EC-121s over the Sea of Japan and killed 31 American airmen.

OTL, Nixon chose not to respond to that - under another President, things might go somewhat differently.

*Drunkenly shambles in from another timeline*
If Kennedy wasn't assassinated in 1967, he would have gone into North Korea just like President Johnson did. "Well he dealt with Berlin, Laos, Vietnam and Cuba, and didn't go to war there". But he never had to deal with North Korea like Johnson did. There was no avoiding that war. *Drinks heavily and shambles off to the Lincoln universe*
 
*Drunkenly shambles in from another timeline*
If Kennedy wasn't assassinated in 1967, he would have gone into North Korea just like President Johnson did. "Well he dealt with Berlin, Laos, Vietnam and Cuba, and didn't go to war there". But he never had to deal with North Korea like Johnson did. There was no avoiding that war. *Drinks heavily and shambles off to the Lincoln universe*

...I don't get it
 
...I don't get it

I was doing a character from a scenario universe where JFK lived 4 years longer, we avoided an Americanized Vietnam War, he died in 1967, Johnson became president in 1967, won 1968, and we hung our hat on a Second Korean War ... lampshading OTL statements that Kennedy would have gone into Vietnam because Johnson did with a war that exists in another timeline but never was in the OTL ... and then that character walked into the universe where Lincoln survived to end it.
 
I was doing a character from a scenario universe where JFK lived 4 years longer, we avoided an Americanized Vietnam War, he died in 1967, Johnson became president in 1967, won 1968, and we hung our hat on a Second Korean War ... lampshading OTL statements that Kennedy would have gone into Vietnam because Johnson did with a war that exists in another timeline but never was in the OTL ... and then that character walked into the universe where Lincoln survived to end it.

I got that, but why

Was it because I said another POTUS might have responded more forcefully to a North Korean action that killed dozens of Americans?
 
I do not have more of substance to bump with. However, does anyone have anything further?

This is an interesting time for North Korea, because prior to the collapse of the USSR, North Korea was receiving heavy financial support from the Communist World. And I think prior to the 1980s, it was the more advanced and prosperous of the two Koreas. Prior to the split, the north had the industry and the south was agrarian, and that trend continued for decades until South Korea developed. Also, in this period, South Korea is a corrupt, authoritarian dictatorship. It was not one of the genuine democracies of Asia as it is now, like Japan of Taiwan. I think it was only in the 1980s or early 1990s that South Korea overcame that and became a proper liberal democracy.

In addition, North Korea has always been an astroturf regime. The contrast to Vietnam is that the North Vietnamese, radical as they were, were genuine nationalists. Kim Il-Sung was an unaccomplished soldier who Stalin put in place because of a "why not?" that grew severely out of hand. The North Vietnamese were distrustful of China and foreign influence. The North Koreans would possibly invite the Chinese back into the conflict. If that is a nuclear China by 1964...well....
 
Top