WI: North Korea wins the Korean War

We all love South Korea. It's where we get our Samsung phones (that blow up when we try to use them) and is a economic powerhouse in Asia.

However, in 1950, South Korea was nearly conquered by North Korea, which blitzkriegged their way through their southern neighbor, capturing Seoul and driving the South Korean government and military leadership to Pusan, literally their last stronghold.

On August 4th, the Americans and the Commonwealth arrived to beat back the North Koreans.

However, they had to do this with the approval of a UN Security Council resolution.

The UN Security Council resolution only succeeded because the Soviet Union was boycotting the United Nations over it's refusal to accept Mao Zedong's government as the legitimate government of China.

But what if the Soviets were there to block the resolution, giving the North Koreans an opportunity to crush their southern counterparts and win the Korean War?
 
Its hard to see how the US would allow such a catastrophic outcome to occur. After the Berlin Airlift and the fall of China, etc they were itching to face off with communism and take a more aggressive stand. I strongly believe the US would not be deterred by Soviet veto in this case.

The South Koreans couldn't "win" the war and reunify the country because the Chinese wouldn't allow the geopolitics of the Peninsula to be destabilised by that. The North can't achieve total victory for similar reasons. In an era of less pronounced stigma around atomic weapons, Truman would rather force the North Koreans to eat some nukes before letting them take over the South entirely, IMHO. The fight devolved into a stalemate IOTL for a reason; because thats where the natural equipoise of 2 powerful rivals brought things to.

In fact, such a situation is potentially more interesting for questions surrounding the future of the UN and the power of the veto, with potentially many butterflies down the track.
 
US arrives without UN cover and still drives NORK north, it may even do better as with USSR threats it might not go as far north and simply hold more without Chines entry.
Also, several of the other nations that contributed troops to the war that enjoy very strong relations with the United States (e.g. Australia, New Zealand) will almost certainly go as well in spite of the UN. It will be kind of like a gritty Coalition of the Willing 1950s reboot, ft the Allied Powers of WW2
 
Last edited:
Also, several of the other nations that contributed troops to the war that enjoy very strong relations with the United States (e.g. Australia, New Zealand) will almost certainly go as well. It will be kind of like a gritty Coalition of the Willing 1950s reboot, ft the Allied Powers of WW2
Yes after all most of them did go to Vietnam with far less obvious provocation and no mandate from UN. It will on the other hand change the feel and status of the UN so early in its life...
 
In fact, such a situation is potentially more interesting for questions surrounding the future of the UN and the power of the veto, with potentially many butterflies down the track.

Heh - that was my first thought.

It's going to depend on exactly how that comes about.

A better way to ensure a DPRK win would be to collapse the Pusan Perimeter in early August 1950.
 
Last edited:
Heh - that was my first thought.

It's going to depend on exactly how that comes about.

A better way to ensure a DPRK win would be to collapse the Pusan Perimeter in eay August 1950.
If the North Korean offensive is so quick that it really can crush all resistance before the stunned Americans can organise a response, then that is indeed their only chance to present a fait accompli. If the communists get bogged down somewhere and the West still has a toehold, they'll use it.

Also as to the UN; in 1950 member nations were:

Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippine Republic, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iceland, Siam, Sweden, Pakistan, Yemen, Burma, Indonesia, Israel.

Not many commies in there, and the majority of these counties would back an intervention if some kind of special vote on the matter were brought to the General Council, which the US would be sure to do in this situation to make a point and provide a fig leaf of consensus for their intervention. This early on in the UN's history, open defiance of the rules and of Soviet wishes will most likely result in all the Warsaw Pact states leaving permanently in protest, which would make the rump UN a Western mouthpiece in the Cold War instead of an inclusive global organistion. Several of the more neutral/non-aligned states may also see which way the wind is blowing and leave sooner or later, perhaps leading to a more powerful non-aligned movement?

It would be quite a different world without the UN as a moderating organisation. To a certain extent, this really kills the globalist, humanitarian movement because it proves that umbrella organisations are doomed to splinter when powerful states completely disregard the terms in situations where their interests are at stake (kind of true even now, but generally not this fragrantly). So perhaps no WTO?
 
What would a united Communist Korea look like? Would the RoK remnant at Jeju island still result in the DPRK being "radicalized" or would it be a more standard communist regime?
 
Wonder how the Soviets and Chinese would treat their own Koreans. Deport them all to Korea, or keep them as they don't want to lose the labor?
 
If eKorea is under greater threat of going full commie (maybe the Pusan Perimeter falls but the Incheon landing succeeds) or if Korea really goes full commie, expect Japan to trash Article 9 with US support as they'll focus on the Land of the Rising Sun to be the primary defender against China, the USSR and Korea. I also expect much greater support for Taiwan, the Philippines, South Vietnam and the rest of Western-oriented SE Asia.

Imagine the Red Scare being more draconian than IOTL, because not only has the West lost China, but also, they lost Korea as well.

And if a Democrat wins the US Presidency 1960, they'll certainly be much more hawkish ITTL, as they want to destroy their image of being weak against communism under Truman. And I think people would be more supportive of the Vietnam War.
 
We all love South Korea. It's where we get our Samsung phones (that blow up when we try to use them) and is a economic powerhouse in Asia.

However, in 1950, South Korea was nearly conquered by North Korea, which blitzkriegged their way through their southern neighbor, capturing Seoul and driving the South Korean government and military leadership to Pusan, literally their last stronghold.

On August 4th, the Americans and the Commonwealth arrived to beat back the North Koreans.

However, they had to do this with the approval of a UN Security Council resolution.

The UN Security Council resolution only succeeded because the Soviet Union was boycotting the United Nations over it's refusal to accept Mao Zedong's government as the legitimate government of China.

But what if the Soviets were there to block the resolution, giving the North Koreans an opportunity to crush their southern counterparts and win the Korean War?

The West tells the Soviets to fuck off, reworks the UN without them, it becomes essentially NATO, and the war goes as scheduled with ROK getting about what they get and a shitload of mistrust between the Soviets and the West, at least until Stalin kicks off. The Warsaw Pact is created to counter the UN and global organizations are largely discredited, though regional ones get a lot of support.

This averts the "We will bury you!" issue at the UN, since the translation would take more time to come through to the West and would likely come down correctly, possibly leading the UN to be more conciliatory toward Khrushchev, especially under Kennedy.

China probably becomes a bigger nuisance than the USSR, and Nixon may find that he can work better with the Soviets than the Chinese. I see the UN telling China to stick their One China policy where the sun don't shine and ROC being recognized by all UN member states. As such, China grows increasingly isolated, clinging to the DPRK and a victory in Vietnam and South Asia, with reconciliation being dashed in the 80s by Reagan calling them an Evil Empire while instead applying pressure more quietly on the USSR about Afghanistan. This is, of course, assuming all else goes as one would expect in American politics - one aversion of anything and it's a different story.

In fact, there's one strong possibility - Humphrey wins in '68. If Nixon has more trouble interfering with the Vietnam peace process, it goes according to plan in '68 and the Democrats stay in power. This averts a LOT - no Watergate, no major backlash against the government, meaning that, assuming the GOP wins in 1972 or 1976, behind literally anyone including a radical-seeming Reagan, stagflation ruins their chances of getting into office in 1980, perhaps discrediting supply-side economics and averting - or delaying and weakening - the conservative revolution.

A radicalized China doesn't let a guy like Deng Xiaoping into power, so they stay radicalized until they collapse right along with the USSR in the 90s. First goes the Soviet Union, then China, likely splintering off with the British hanging onto Hong Kong and the Cantonese areas splitting off. ROC becomes independent, as does Tibet. Next up, the DPRK collapses after the famine in the 90s and slowly reunited with ROK, with the Kim family summarily executed and exiled. So the biggest Communist country left would be Vietnam and even they downplay it and are friendly toward the West.

Also, Samsung TVs are awesome, but iPhones are superior, and they would be in any timeline, most likely.
 
If the North Korean offensive is so quick that it really can crush all resistance before the stunned Americans can organise a response, then that is indeed their only chance to present a fait accompli. If the communists get bogged down somewhere and the West still has a toehold, they'll use it.

Exactly so.

FEAF bombers had trouble taking out the Han River bridges at Seoul, the main line of supply Pusan, but finally suceeded in late July. Delay that, and toss in some similar believable strokes of luck and you allow the NKPA more to hit the Pusan perimeter with more sooner. Wouldn't it be "fun" to see the NKPA have more intact T-34s to crack Pusan with? :D

Bulldog had a troubled relationship (to put it mildly) with Mac and Almond. If you can make that worse, it bodes well for the NKPA. Even better would be to have Walker's accident bumped up earlier. Kill him off in July (a nearly identical accident or a plane crash - he was constantly running around in a jeep or Bird Dog coordinating the defense), and replace him with an incompetent (ie not Ridgeway).


If eKorea is under greater threat of going full commie (maybe the Pusan Perimeter falls but the Incheon landing succeeds) or if Korea really goes full commie, expect Japan to trash Article 9 with US support as they'll focus on the Land of the Rising Sun to be the primary defender against China, the USSR and Korea. I also expect much greater support for Taiwan, the Philippines, South Vietnam and the rest of Western-oriented SE Asia.

Just a couple of minor nit picks.

It would be accurate to say Article 9 would be ignored even harder than it it was OTL.

Also, IMHO, it would be more accurate to say that the US would trash it rather than Japan doing so with US support, as it was the US that caused it to be de facto abrogated.

As for the question of what happens internationally, like I said above, it really depends on how the UN boycot is avoided. OTL, it was a response to ROC getting the UNSC seat. The big question here is what changed. Did the PRC keep the UNSC seat? If not, why did the SU react differently from OTL? Answer those questions and the rest should follow...
 
We all love South Korea. It's where we get our Samsung phones (that blow up when we try to use them) and is a economic powerhouse in Asia.

However, in 1950, South Korea was nearly conquered by North Korea, which blitzkriegged their way through their southern neighbor, capturing Seoul and driving the South Korean government and military leadership to Pusan, literally their last stronghold.

On August 4th, the Americans and the Commonwealth arrived to beat back the North Koreans.

However, they had to do this with the approval of a UN Security Council resolution.

The UN Security Council resolution only succeeded because the Soviet Union was boycotting the United Nations over it's refusal to accept Mao Zedong's government as the legitimate government of China.

But what if the Soviets were there to block the resolution, giving the North Koreans an opportunity to crush their southern counterparts and win the Korean War?
The US would intervene with or without Security Council authorization. The UN charter, after all, recognizes the right of nations to individual and collective self-defense. Nothing would prevent other countries from aiding the US and South Korea, with or without a Security Council resolution. The US and the ROK would of course supply most of the troops, but they did in OTL as well. And in any event the General Assembly, where there is no veto, could have given formal backing to the intervention as it ultimately did in OTL with the "Uniting for Peace" resolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377

As I said in a post in soc.history.what-if some years ago:

In short, I think that those who regard Stalin's boycott as a terrible
blunder (because it led the UN to approve intervention) and those who see it
as a clever move (because UN involvement supposedly put restraints on the US)
are both wrong. It just had very litlle effect, one way or the other. (What
"restrained" the US was not the UN but fear of a wider war, a belief that
Erurope rather than Asia was the most important battleground of the Cold War,
etc.) It may not even have affected the issue of whether the war would have
formal UN approval. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/rfe72FCDn4E/h8Azv9ydqy4J
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Heh - that was my first thought.

It's going to depend on exactly how that comes about.

A better way to ensure a DPRK win would be to collapse the Pusan Perimeter in early August 1950.
Doesn't really matter.

Truman was going to react. He actually had no choice but to react.

The UN made it a much "easier" sell, since it was an "all for one, one for all" scenario, but the reality always was that it was a Coalition of the Willing (tm) or the WW II WAllies

At Peak strength the UN Command (all of the senior leadership, not coincidentally, Americans, three of the four being graduates of West Point) numbered 953,000. ROK forces were 591K, U.S. forces were 302K (894K combined or 93.8% of the total). Next up were Commonwealth forces (Australia, Canada, New Zealand & UK) totaling 23,988 (40% of the non UK forces, 2.5% of the total), followed by a couple surprises: Philippines with 7,468 and Thailand with 6,326 (these two countries almost equaled the UK contingent, although the UK was a considerably "heavier" formation). The Turks contributed 5,453 (one brigade), all other countries with armed forces provided battalion sized formations, or smaller (Luxembourg sent a platoon, but still contributed forces).

The DPRK was going to get its ass kicked. Without the UN having an imprint, the U.S. might have been even more willing to get medieval on the enemy.
 
Doesn't really matter.

Truman was going to react. He actually had no choice but to react.

The UN made it a much "easier" sell, since it was an "all for one, one for all" scenario, but the reality always was that it was a Coalition of the Willing (tm) or the WW II WAllies

At Peak strength the UN Command (all of the senior leadership, not coincidentally, Americans, three of the four being graduates of West Point) numbered 953,000. ROK forces were 591K, U.S. forces were 302K (894K combined or 93.8% of the total). Next up were Commonwealth forces (Australia, Canada, New Zealand & UK) totaling 23,988 (40% of the non UK forces, 2.5% of the total), followed by a couple surprises: Philippines with 7,468 and Thailand with 6,326 (these two countries almost equaled the UK contingent, although the UK was a considerably "heavier" formation). The Turks contributed 5,453 (one brigade), all other countries with armed forces provided battalion sized formations, or smaller (Luxembourg sent a platoon, but still contributed forces).

The DPRK was going to get its ass kicked. Without the UN having an imprint, the U.S. might have been even more willing to get medieval on the enemy.

At peak strength, yes. But kick the UN off the peninsula quick enough and you end up with a much harder nut to crack.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
At peak strength, yes. But kick the UN off the peninsula quick enough and you end up with a much harder nut to crack.
The U.S. managed to crack the Atlantic Wall, take Leyte, Iwo and Okinawa (the latter three outside of useful land based fighter-bomber protection). In 1950 USAF jet fighters and Fighter-Bombers can reach the Yalu from bases located in the Home Islands.) and medium bombers can operate with virtual impunity. Inchon will be no better defended in this scenario than in OTL, if anything it may be less well defended.

Truman (and the U.S.) has NO CHOICE but to liberate the ROK. Failing to do so cuts the entire concept of "containment" off at the knees. May well gut NATO.

The U.S. get pushed out of Pusan, and there is a better than even chance that the worst happens, the U.S. is pushed to seriously going after the PRC, with all that could entail, after the Chinese "volunteers" arrive.

Beijing is 1,130 air miles from Kaneda AFB. That is 430 miles closer than Hiroshima was to Tinian.
 
When it comes to South Korea's game industry, it's mostly MMOs and MMOs aren't my style.

But anyway a North Korean victory in the Korean War would be disasterous in both the short and long run; the rest of the Korean peninsula would be subject to the craziness of the Kim dynasty along with Japan and possibly other countries nearby would be dealing with more of their saber-rattling shenanigans; not just East Asia, the whole continent of Asia would get more destabilized than OTL thanks to the victory of Communism in the Korean peninsula. And this would add the Red Scare thing going on in the US at the time and might extend to Canada and Mexico, bat least Japan's chances of rearming would be a lot higher ITTL.
 
When it comes to South Korea's game industry, it's mostly MMOs and MMOs aren't my style.

But anyway a North Korean victory in the Korean War would be disasterous in both the short and long run; the rest of the Korean peninsula would be subject to the craziness of the Kim dynasty along with Japan and possibly other countries nearby would be dealing with more of their saber-rattling shenanigans; not just East Asia, the whole continent of Asia would get more destabilized than OTL thanks to the victory of Communism in the Korean peninsula. And this would add the Red Scare thing going on in the US at the time and might extend to Canada and Mexico, bat least Japan's chances of rearming would be a lot higher ITTL.

But might Kim Il-sung and (by extension, his family) get purged in a North Korean victory scenario? You're changing the entire dynamic of the North Korean state. The only "South Korea" they have to face is going to be scattered over a bunch of islands, centered on Jeju.

A North Korea which isn't staring down South Korea (as we know it) is going to be a lot different. It might even collapse after the end of the Cold War and end up like PR China.

Which speaking of islands, how many South Korean islands can North Korea seize? They aren't getting Jeju, that's for sure, but what about the scattered islands surrounding mainland South Korea? Geography and other concerns will make it impossible to hold every island, but certainly at least a few can be saved, since they'll be useful as airbases, propaganda, etc. You could effectively encircle the southern half of the Korean peninsula, carving out a few Kinmen-esque holdings.
 
But might Kim Il-sung and (by extension, his family) get purged in a North Korean victory scenario? You're changing the entire dynamic of the North Korean state. The only "South Korea" they have to face is going to be scattered over a bunch of islands, centered on Jeju.

A North Korea which isn't staring down South Korea (as we know it) is going to be a lot different. It might even collapse after the end of the Cold War and end up like PR China.

Which speaking of islands, how many South Korean islands can North Korea seize? They aren't getting Jeju, that's for sure, but what about the scattered islands surrounding mainland South Korea? Geography and other concerns will make it impossible to hold every island, but certainly at least a few can be saved, since they'll be useful as airbases, propaganda, etc. You could effectively encircle the southern half of the Korean peninsula, carving out a few Kinmen-esque holdings.
I honestly forgot about the Jeju islands, kind of making it almost like a parallel to the Chinese situation but my point still stands about how disasterous a victorious North Korea would be.
 

ben0628

Banned
Without a pod before the Korean War, North Korea cannot win the Korean War. Regardless of UN approval, the United States is going to get involved no matter what. Once this happens, North Korea is screwed. By the time the North Korean military engaged the Pusan perimeter, the North Korean military lacked the reserves and logistical capabilities to break the perimeter. And even if they did break the perimeter, the US and South Koreans would just fall back and make an even tighter perimeter right outside of Pusan. And even if North Korea could somehow magically break through that perimeter, capture Pusan, and drive the Americans into the sea, it did not matter. The Inchon landing would still occur at the same time it did in otl and be just as successful. Once the Inchon landing occurs, the North Koreans will be forced to retreat, or face encirclement and destruction.

At the same time though, North Korea cannot be conquered by South Korea and the Americans. Once Pyongyang got captured and MacArthur didn't stop at the DMZ, Chinese involvement becomes inevitable. Once China involves itself in the conflict, America is also forced to go all in. The truth of the matter is that without a pod that changes the politics and militarys of the nations involved before the Korean War begins, STALEMATE IS INEVITABLE.

Or it goes nuclear.
 
Top