Let's suppose US troops remain in its zone of Korea instead of withrawing after the beginning of the Republic of Korea, and that North Korea isn't going to directly attack US troops. How will that lack of a Korean War impact the development of the world? Will there be a chance for smaller skirmishes to occur instead?
WI Korean War doesn't happen
- Thread starter mauriceq
- Start date
History Learner
Banned
Japanese and West Germany recovery are severely stunted, while the UK is much better off while the U.S. is likewise; the American steel industry, for one, will likely remain number one in the world.
A few things to consider:
- The Chinese were gearing up to invade Taiwan and finish the job, but the Korean War and Chinese involvement in it meant that the US deployed more naval forces to stop them. Assuming the Americans ITTL only kept troops in South Korea then the Chinese may able to cross unhindered and may or may not win the ground battle against the ROC. Without the precedent of Korea the Americans may not react agressively to the invasion if they think this is just a continuation and ending of the Chinese Civil War and not a Soviet or Chinese attempt at expansion. They didn't care much for the KMT at first postwar. After that the CCP may just rebuild for some time but without the losses of the Korean War may be confident enough to strike somewhere later on (outside of Tibet).
- Considering that Stalin wasn't eager to go in a direct confrontation with the West, the pre-Korea situation may last beyond 1951, perhaps even beyond 1953 with Stalin dying. This could have huge consequences later on.
- The US itself would partially gut, partially rebuild its forces even in peacetime. It just won't be as extreme as during or just after the KW. SAC was getting more potent under LeMay and apparently Truman approved a new carrier for the Navy. I personally don't think it would last much beyond Truman (so after 1952 or 56) but the US would possibly have a saner rearmament since there wouldn't be a need to produce a fuckton of already obsolescent gear. More time would be devoted to testing.
- There won't be the economic disruption of massive rearmament and then domobilization.
- Western Europe would also rearm at a saner pace while investing into further modernisations of the industry and civilian economy. The UK would significantly benefit from this. Japan and W-Ger may develop more slowly although I think W-Ger was still gearing up for a good civilian economy.
End result: NATO rearmament will bear fruits later but those fruits won't be rotten.
- The Chinese were gearing up to invade Taiwan and finish the job, but the Korean War and Chinese involvement in it meant that the US deployed more naval forces to stop them. Assuming the Americans ITTL only kept troops in South Korea then the Chinese may able to cross unhindered and may or may not win the ground battle against the ROC. Without the precedent of Korea the Americans may not react agressively to the invasion if they think this is just a continuation and ending of the Chinese Civil War and not a Soviet or Chinese attempt at expansion. They didn't care much for the KMT at first postwar. After that the CCP may just rebuild for some time but without the losses of the Korean War may be confident enough to strike somewhere later on (outside of Tibet).
- Considering that Stalin wasn't eager to go in a direct confrontation with the West, the pre-Korea situation may last beyond 1951, perhaps even beyond 1953 with Stalin dying. This could have huge consequences later on.
- The US itself would partially gut, partially rebuild its forces even in peacetime. It just won't be as extreme as during or just after the KW. SAC was getting more potent under LeMay and apparently Truman approved a new carrier for the Navy. I personally don't think it would last much beyond Truman (so after 1952 or 56) but the US would possibly have a saner rearmament since there wouldn't be a need to produce a fuckton of already obsolescent gear. More time would be devoted to testing.
- There won't be the economic disruption of massive rearmament and then domobilization.
- Western Europe would also rearm at a saner pace while investing into further modernisations of the industry and civilian economy. The UK would significantly benefit from this. Japan and W-Ger may develop more slowly although I think W-Ger was still gearing up for a good civilian economy.
End result: NATO rearmament will bear fruits later but those fruits won't be rotten.
What would it change in the long term? Is there anything Truman would have done that he didn’t already
Well its more what doesn't happen rather than what does happen. No Eisenhower in after 1952 means we see huge ramifications for American politics.
I don't think that Truman would have been reelected in 1952. Don't forget by that point the Democrats had held the White House for almost 20 years so there would have been some desire for change. But without a KW it would probably butterfly away the presidency of Eisenhower.
I do think desire for change would exist, but Truman would be able to surmount that and win a small but firm victory in 1952. Followed with 1954 being a good GOP year and a strong GOP win in 1956.
The US Navy would basically be turned into a littoral force, and the Marines shrunk and absorbed into the Army as a small Ranger-like unit. Plans/directives for all of this was in the works when NK invaded IOTL.
en.wikipedia.org
ric350
Revolt of the Admirals - Wikipedia
ric350
The Korean War was the first proxy conflict of the Cold War, so if the Korean War never happened, then the idea of a proxy conflict goes untested, at least for a certain period of time. Also, the United States may send troops to support the French in Indochina, without having to worry about the stalemate in Korea, so American airpower could be used against the Viet Minh, though American airpower proved to be useless against the North Vietnamese in OTL's Vietnam War, so whether or not it would be useful in this timeline is up for debate. Even if airpower was useful against the Viet Minh, there was nothing stopping China from sending the PLA into North Vietnam to support Ho Chi Minh.
The PRC lacked the naval capability to invade Taiwan. Even today, they still do. I doubt the absence of the Korean War would change that. Also, fun fact, the Taiwanese Strait is extremely treacherous for most of the year, because of high torrential winds, except for two windows in April and October, respectively. These windows last about four weeks. According to PLA studies in OTL, April is extremely foggy and October has late season typhoons which hit Taiwan about six to seven times per year. If the PLA invaded Taiwan, then their supply lines are tenuous, again, because of the weather. There are also very few beaches on which the PLA could actually land on.
The PRC lacked the naval capability to invade Taiwan. Even today, they still do. I doubt the absence of the Korean War would change that. Also, fun fact, the Taiwanese Strait is extremely treacherous for most of the year, because of high torrential winds, except for two windows in April and October, respectively. These windows last about four weeks. According to PLA studies in OTL, April is extremely foggy and October has late season typhoons which hit Taiwan about six to seven times per year. If the PLA invaded Taiwan, then their supply lines are tenuous, again, because of the weather. There are also very few beaches on which the PLA could actually land on.
American support for the French in Indochina was partly due to the French spinning it as a war against communism when Korea started, and the US remained somewhat anticolonialist then. Would American support really grow regardless, and would it even have time to grow? The French didn't do well until aid arrived so they might give up sooner.
And re Taiwan, do you think China will try to invade regardless or will it wait for a few years still?
Deleted member 140587
United States
Truman gets in for a third term over Robert Taft in 1952. Military-Industrial complex is dealt a harsh blow. Ike-Nixon probably still gets in in 1956.
United Kingdom
Labour stays in for the 1950s. No Suez Crisis, decolonization takes place over a longer timeframe. Britain retains more influence abroad
Truman gets in for a third term over Robert Taft in 1952. Military-Industrial complex is dealt a harsh blow. Ike-Nixon probably still gets in in 1956.
United Kingdom
Labour stays in for the 1950s. No Suez Crisis, decolonization takes place over a longer timeframe. Britain retains more influence abroad
Last edited by a moderator:
The Second Red Scare would probably encourage the American public to call on the US government to support France against the communists. Though, you're right, in OTL there were numerous reasons for why the Americans didn't support the French such as...
As Operation Barbarossa has shown us, fighting a war in treacherous weather is almost suicidal. Any PLA units that try to invade Taiwan outside of those windows are dicing with death. Also, I doubt China would want to invade Taiwan in the years following the Korean War since internally, starting in 1958, it's dealing with the Great Leap Forward, the Great Famine and the Cultural Revolution. The latter two plunged China into political turmoil, with the Cultural Revolution's turmoil lasting for almost a decade, with the PLA supporting it as per Mao's orders. The Revolution caused a severe split within the PLA, with some factions committing massacres of supposed 'enemies of the Party', only to be stopped by other factions. In 1967, there was even a mutiny by anti-CR PLA units which involved besieging Mao Zedong's hotel. The PLA also accumulated political power with the fact that it was maintaining order in China's largest cities, I doubt Mao would want to plan an invasion during the famine which almost brought about his downfall and then during a period of instability that he incited.
If you look at the Japanese invasion of Taiwan 50 years earlier would it be feasible to copy that.
Without being bogged down in Korea there hasn't been any examples of CPC failure instead they just had the experiences of victory against both Japan and the mainland KMT etc. Losing in Taiwan could could have the same effect in effectively forcing the CPC to modernize and train its armies.
Aftermath of the Korean War - Wikipedia
MacArthur would still be remembered favorably for his contribution to the Pacific War
Mao might not be as hostile without the experience of fighting the US directly in Korea or indirectly in Taiwan.
To prevent the Korean War there is no need to change anything except to have Stalin continue to say No to Kim Il Sung.
MacArthur. I really wonder what he does without the Korean War - get into American politics maybe? He can't play Benevolent Dictator in Japan forever.