WI: S.K. & U.S. win the Korean war.

In 1952 the offensive against the North Koreans and Chinese is an astonishing success, both surrender and as does the Soviet union. For the first time since August of 1910, Korea is one and strong. In this scenario, what would likely happen from then to now?
 
In 1952 the offensive against the North Koreans and Chinese is an astonishing success, both surrender and as does the Soviet union. For the first time since August of 1910, Korea is one and strong. In this scenario, what would likely happen from then to now?

American and Allied forces create a armed DMZ in the boarder between China, russia and Korea. This adds friction between america and china and make china take a more hard line stance toward america. Weather this butterfly's away the economic liberalization that came later OTL is up for grabs.

Korea with the extra people and resources becomes a slightly bigger economy a little bit sooner, and has a good chance of getting into the top ten economies on earth.

Vietnam goes worse for america because both the chinese and the soviets see it as a way to get sweet sweet payback.
 
(Doesn't seem that plausible but whatever)

(1952~1965)Rhee is now the president who has reunified the country. Thus doubles and triples his support and fame. Doesn't mean he is any little bit less crazy however. He continues to support the Rhee Syngman Line and destroy any Japanese ships that come near it.
Now basically king, Rhee continues to be elected until his death in 1965. By now the economy has worsened and only tottering along with American aid. His VP Lee Ki-boong attempts to consolidate power around himself, but it collapses when Park Chung-hee rises to power with a coup(OTL he planned to topple Rhee himself but was cancelled).

(1965~1972)Now the rule of Park. With him only two things mattered: the endorsement from the United States, and more foreign currency. This was true IOTL, and this wouldn't change TTL. Thus he will attempt two things, same as OTL: strong support of the US in Vietnam, and the "export" of South Korean labourers. Economic development will be slower than OTL by a few years. By the time the First Oil Crisis hits Park is struck hard, and is replaced by Kim Dae-jung.

(1972~1981)Kim was a long-time Liberal Party leader and human rights activist, and justly so tries to reinstate better labour rights and working conditions. He also supports Non-Alliance and attempts to make the US leave over a 10-year period and pulls out of Vietnam, while trying to better relationship with the Communists. His ideal for a neutral Korea, one to bring peace and security in Asia, does not sit well with the Americans. He is assassinated in 1981 under the Reagan Administration.

(1981~1997)The CIA replace Kim with famous Vietnam-era general Chun Doo-hwan. Chun develops a cult of personality around himsef(as OTL) and tries to shape his character as a Buddha who has come to rescue Korea. Along with the good world economy Korea sees huge economic development during this time, with economic growth averaging 12% with the inflation brought under control. The regime crumbles with the IMF crisis of 1997 and Chun is replaced by long-time attorney Roh Moo-hyun.

(1997~2009)Roh has survived multiple assassination attempts and political crises by this time, a true political veteran. He shapes his government policy around that of Kim Dae-joong and tries to balance between a growing China and a hegemonic US. The economy recovers greatly under his 12-year administration as President.

(2009~2015)South Korea elects former foreign minister Ban Ki-moon as President. His presidency, which continues until today, is characterised with moderate policy towards labour unions and abolishment of conscription.

......

So there you have it. Hope you enjoy.
 
The front had been stalemated since 1951, and there was no political will in the US at the time to expand the war in Korea during an election year in 1952.

You're going to have to explain how the US and its allies manage to accumulate both the necessary war material (without having to resort to nuclear weaponry which could have expanded the war to a level that Truman did not want to go to), the political capital and the public support necessary to carry out an offensive that would cause both the North Koreans and the Chinese to retreat and surrender.

The best chance for the US to achieve this particular goal was for the North Koreans to surrender in 1950 and somehow get the Chinese to not intervene, which was extremely difficult considering the PRC did not want a new hostile capitalist US-backed Korea on its borders not to mention General McArthur's desire to continue the war to Beijing w/nukes.
 
Ideally, the US would push into North Korea but not push too close to the Chinese border to bring them into the war. Wasn't that MacArthur's fault?
 
Yep, that and he wanted to drop 50 something nukes on china, Eisenhower made the right decision firing him.

Actually, that was Truman that fired him, and rightfully so, even though he became extremely unpopular at home because of it.

All the same, when McArthur began crowing to the press about how he had intensions to march into Manchuria to clear out communist staging areas and possibly march all the way to Beijing and also not so subtly imply that he was willing to use nuclear weaponry, well, if you're the communist leadership of the PRC, having lived through the Chinese Civil War and also the Japanese Invasion, you approach it as if McArthur means every word of what he means.
 

Andre27

Banned
American and Allied forces create a armed DMZ in the boarder between China, russia and Korea. This adds friction between america and china and make china take a more hard line stance toward america. Weather this butterfly's away the economic liberalization that came later OTL is up for grabs.

Korea with the extra people and resources becomes a slightly bigger economy a little bit sooner, and has a good chance of getting into the top ten economies on earth.

Vietnam goes worse for america because both the chinese and the soviets see it as a way to get sweet sweet payback.

I agree on the DMZ, but not on its impact.
In OTL the human wave tactic and the push back of UN forces gave PRC it's first semi-legitimate claim as superpower. If China is pushed back with ease then it will be viewed as a paper tiger. There may even be a revolt because millions of soldiers perished without a victory (or something that could be depicted as such) to show for it.

Vietnam could be much more hardcore since both the USSR and PRC are viewed as paper tigers after their humiliation in Korea.

The US may even push into North Vietnam towards the border with China with ground forces since there is no reason for caution. North Vietnam may be a lot more cautious in its actions against South Vietnam since their backup has proven to be all bark and no bite.
 
I agree on the DMZ, but not on its impact.
In OTL the human wave tactic and the push back of UN forces gave PRC it's first semi-legitimate claim as superpower. If China is pushed back with ease then it will be viewed as a paper tiger. There may even be a revolt because millions of soldiers perished without a victory (or something that could be depicted as such) to show for it.

Vietnam could be much more hardcore since both the USSR and PRC are viewed as paper tigers after their humiliation in Korea.

The US may even push into North Vietnam towards the border with China with ground forces since there is no reason for caution. North Vietnam may be a lot more cautious in its actions against South Vietnam since their backup has proven to be all bark and no bite.

It would be simplistic to call the Chinese tactics in the Korean War simply 'human wave' tactics, as if they were comparable to the North Koreans. Keep in mind that the Chinese opponents the US faced were veterans from the Chinese Civil War and the Sino-Japanese War, and were commanded by an extremely competent commander, Peng Dehuai. The Chinese soldiers were skilled at maneuvering at night, avoiding aerial reconnaissance and also in infiltration and flanking. They were certainly more competent than the North Koreans that they faced, who used mashed up versions of Soviet tactics.

If the Chinese were decisively defeated though, then that could certainly encourage the US into pushing more aggressively in East Asia, and that the Soviets might be less willing to support communist movements in that region as well. In fact, we might see the US sponsor far more serious plans to help Taiwan retake the mainland.
 
Ideally, the US would push into North Korea but not push too close to the Chinese border to bring them into the war. Wasn't that MacArthur's fault?
Ideally they'd have pushed up not too close to the Chinese border and then let the South Koreans finish the job. Approach Mao diplomatically via back-channels and offer him a deal of an unofficial DMZ along the Yalu river, UN forces to be evacuated as soon as possible once the fighting has finished, and any small numbers of foreign troops that remain to be unofficially limited to being based and operating no further north than a line roughly along say our timeline's DMZ in return for which the PRC lets North Korea fall.
 
Would removing MacArthur earlier be a possible way to placate the Chinese? Even something as boring as having him fall down some stairs? Is there anyone less Gung-Ho than Mac that could lead the campaign?
 
Ideally, the US would push into North Korea but not push too close to the Chinese border to bring them into the war. Wasn't that MacArthur's fault?

I know that there have been what-ifs about "if only the US had stopped at the narrow neck." The problem is that Mao had already decided on intervention before that point. Of course, if the US made clear that it would go no further, and there could even be a rump DPRK along the Chinese border, Mao *might* reverse his decision, and arguably the US/UN forces would be better prepared for the Chines onslaught even if he didn't.
 
The impact of A lost Korean War on China depends on when, where and it was lost. There were two ways the UN and RoK could win it after Chinese intervention:

1) Instead of the Home-by-Christmas Offensive, the UN forces managed to pull back, reorganize, consolidate, and form a defensive line south of Chosin reservoir and Ch'ongch'on river after the Chinese forces disengaged following the First Phase Campaign. Subsequent Chinese offensives failed because of a much better prepared UN defense.

To lose the Korea War in this way would hurt Mao's prestige vis-a-vis communist leaders who cautioned against the war, such as Zhu De and Lin Biao, but it would not develope into a full-blown confidence crisis to the CCP.

2) The UN forces managed to cut off and round up the tired and over-extended Chinese 13th Army during the Fourth Battle of Seoul, and causes a total Chinese collapse. A defeat in such scale would shake the foundations of the new Chinese communist state.

In all circumstances, the fall of DPRK would mean that China has to garrison large amount of troops on Yalu and Tumen, facing off the U.S.. This would cost China huge amount of resources, derailing the First Five Year Plan, which might be a good thing, as the Success of the First Five Year Plan lead to the Second Five Year Plan, also known as the Great Leap Forward.

A constant military pressure from Korea, without an actual war, might mean that The CCP was never confident enough to make the switch to full Planned Economy, and the Hybrid economy during the first couple of years of PRC lasted longer. This, coupled with a less prestigious Mao, might make fate of TTL China much better.
 
IIRC, wasn't the North of Korea the center of its industrial resources? Having the North added onto the ROK would definitely mean a bigger boost in economic development. North Korea actually was faring better than South Korea at first because of this I believe, until central planning created bottlenecks and stalled things out.

Vietnam would be an issue. Communist bloc might invest more to save face, but at the same token without the memory of Korea the United States wouldn't have any fear of crossing into North Vietnam and destroying its sanctuaries.
 
Top