WI: U.S.-DPRK diplomatic relations in a scenario where the Korean Peninsula fell before UN reinforcements arrived?

[Gillan1220]

I was in Korea last month and I got a chance to visit the DMZ. It made me realize that the past 71 years of division has lead to both Koreas being so distinct in culture, language, and identity to the point that even South Koreas mostly do not want reunification with the North. Esepcially after the recent warming up in 2018-2019 fell apart.

Going back, what if before the UN could reinforce the Korean Peninsula, the whole Peninsula from the Yalu to Pusan/Busan is under the DPRK.

Obviously, the U.S. and the West would be hostile to this DPRK. This would also mean the JSDF in nearby Japan would be given more powers and possibly the stationing of nuclear weapons just like in OTL where the U.S. had nuclear weapons in Iwo Jima, Chichi Jima, Taiwan, and the Philippines.

According to Cody of AH hub, the reason North Korea is hostile towards the U.S. is because it has stationed forces there since 1953. Without this, Cody states that at some point in the future in a North Korea victory scenario, the DPRK and the United States would eventually have diplomatic relations.

What year do you think the U.S. would establish relations with the DPRK?

So it's probably going to be like China, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba where the U.S. has diplomatic relations with communist/socialist/authoritarian/semi-democratic countries.

The butterflies here would probably mean no DPRK nuclear program. Another question is would this DPRK reform just like China and Vietnam where they are officially communists in paper but have opened up to the world in terms of trade and tourism?

Discuss.

 

[Whiteshore]

According to Cody of AH hub, the reason North Korea is hostile towards the U.S. is because it has stationed forces there since 1953. Without this, Cody states that at some point in the future in a North Korea victory scenario, the DPRK and the United States would eventually have diplomatic relations.

What year do you think the U.S. would establish relations with the DPRK?

It would take a relatively long time for the DPRK and US to establish diplomatic relations as there would still be a RoK-in-Jeju as a (shitty) “mini-Taiwan” of sorts.

 

[Citycat]

Better relations than IOTL. The US-backed South Korea doesn't exist, so the main source of tension between North Korea and the US no longer is there.

Probably a similar relationship as OTL Vietnam, where after a few decades both countries eventually moved on and reconciled. Once the US client state (South Vietnam) is defeated, they had minimal competing geopolitical interests.

 

[Gillan1220]

It would take a relatively long time for the DPRK and US to establish diplomatic relations as there would still be a RoK-in-Jeju as a (shitty) “mini-Taiwan” of sorts.

Do you think this DPRK would still claim Jeju as theirs?
Will they be as hostile as the PRC in wanting to reunite the island into the Peninsula?
Do you think the ROK government under Syngman Rhee would settle in Jeju?
What navy did the DPRK have in this period?

Better relations than IOTL. The US-backed South Korea doesn't exist, so the main source of tension between North Korea and the US no longer is there.

Probably a similar relationship as OTL Vietnam, where after a few decades both countries eventually moved on and reconciled. Once the US client state (South Vietnam) is defeated, they had minimal competing geopolitical interests.

The distrust would still be there though, because the Kim Dynasty would still be either be in the Soviet and Chinese camp. You'd still have the DPRK be considered a threat to Northeast Asia since it points directly to Japan.

The next question is will the Kim Dynasty still promote Juche and will the people of the Korean Peninsula be living under oppression? Will the capital be in Pyongyang or Seoul?

Without a U.S.-backed ROK, there won't be a reason for the Kims to be so hostile towards the U.S. and its allies, though distrust will still be there for sure since the DPRK is a communist country.

At what part of the Cold War do you think the U.S. will recognize the DPRK? Or do you see this DPRK lasting past 1989-1991 (assuming this Cold War follows OTL more or less).

In other butterflies, this would mean the U.S. would take a harsher stance on communist movements in Malaya, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. The Cuban Revolution might be butterflied away since the U.S. would not allow Cuba to fall to communism if Korea fell.

 

[Whiteshore]

Do you think this DPRK would still claim Jeju as theirs?
Will they be as hostile as the PRC in wanting to reunite the island into the Peninsula?
Do you think the ROK government under Syngman Rhee would settle in Jeju?
What navy did the DPRK have in this period?

Considering the DPRK would have a One Korea policy, Seoul (which IOTL was constitutionally the DPRK capital in 1950) will 100% claim Jeju as their legitimate territory even if Rhee and co settle in Jeju under the protective embrace of the 7th Fleet.

At what part of the Cold War do you think the U.S. will recognize the DPRK? Or do you see this DPRK lasting past 1989-1991 (assuming this Cold War follows OTL more or less).

I'd say it would take them a long time to recognize the DPRK with a Jeju-based "Free Korea" (even if it is a glorified US Naval Base) and all that.

 

[Gillan1220]

Considering the DPRK would have a One Korea policy, Seoul (which IOTL was constitutionally the DPRK capital in 1950) will 100% claim Jeju as their legitimate territory even if Rhee and co settle in Jeju under the protective embrace of the 7th Fleet.

I'd say it would take them a long time to recognize the DPRK with a Jeju-based "Free Korea" (even if it is a glorified US Naval Base) and all that.

Okay, now we got a second "Taiwan" and this time it is in Northeast Asia.

Unless at some point, the ROK would rename itself as Republic of Jeju and the DPRK would recognize that. It would take some constitutional amendment to recognize Jeju as independent for DPRK!Seoul and the international community.

 

[Kalakali]

Better relations than IOTL. The US-backed South Korea doesn't exist, so the main source of tension between North Korea and the US no longer is there.

Probably a similar relationship as OTL Vietnam, where after a few decades both countries eventually moved on and reconciled. Once the US client state (South Vietnam) is defeated, they had minimal competing geopolitical interests.

If the Jeju issue is eventually removed, then Yes, I could absolutely see North Korea feeling much more secure relative to real life due to it not having a much more successful development model to its south, which in turn would have created less North Korean paranoia about the US eventually attempting to do a regime change military operation in North Korea.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

Another question is would this DPRK reform just like China and Vietnam where they are officially communists in paper but have opened up to the world in terms of trade and tourism?

Probably a similar relationship as OTL Vietnam, where after a few decades both countries eventually moved on and reconciled. Once the US client state (South Vietnam) is defeated, they had minimal competing geopolitical interests.

This I think is the more interesting issue to ponder.

Does an early, unified, Communist Korea flourish, or does it turn into one giant rusting famine ridden semi industrial hermitage?

Does it, by TTL's new millennium, become anywhere near as vibrant and lively as Vietnam is today?

 

[Kalakali]

This I think is the more interesting issue to ponder.

Does an early, unified, Communist Korea flourish, or does it turn into one giant rusting famine ridden semi industrial hermitage?

Does it, by TTL's new millennium, become anywhere near as vibrant and lively as Vietnam is today?

I think that its odds of success are less than Vietnam's because it's a family dictatorship whereas Vietnam had a semblance of collective leadership.

 

[SirCecil]

I think that its odds of success are less than Vietnam's because it's a family dictatorship whereas Vietnam had a semblance of collective leadership.

This assumes that the Kim dynasty would remain intact in a united Korea when IOTL there was more than one attempt at removing it when it was just the North.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

This assumes that the Kim dynasty would remain intact in a united Korea when IOTL there was more than one attempt at removing it when it was just the North.

Are there any alternative leadership figures to the Kims who might be able to make a unified Communist Korea flourish?

 

[Whiteshore]

Are there any alternative leadership figures to the Kims who might be able to make a unified Communist Korea flourish?

Pak Hon-Yong (for a Moscow-aligned DPRK) or Kim Tu-Bong (for a Beijing-aligned DPRK) would be pretty obvious candidates, for starters.

 

[Gillan1220]

I think that its odds of success are less than Vietnam's because it's a family dictatorship whereas Vietnam had a semblance of collective leadership.

Not to mention, Vietnam did not (and does not) have a Stalinist type of dictatorship built on a cult of personality. Ho Chi Mihn was actually pro-American during World War II and even borrowed a quote from the Declaration of Independence should Vietnam have been independent from France. Post-war U.S. foreign policy under Truman would sour relations between the U.S. and the Viet Minh. Had FDR survived, the Vietnam War would have been averted because FDR would have pressured France to give independence to Indochina. But that's for another scenario.

The Vietnamese only adapted communism when there was no one to turn to support their independence from France.

This assumes that the Kim dynasty would remain intact in a united Korea when IOTL there was more than one attempt at removing it when it was just the North.

Oh yes, I'd assume this ATL DPRK that controls the entire Korean Peninsula would not be stable. OTL DPRK and ROK at this period weren't stable nations. Both were ruled by authoritarian dictatorships and South Korea wasn't the regional powerhouse as it would be later in the 1980s.

Are there any alternative leadership figures to the Kims who might be able to make a unified Communist Korea flourish?

Pak Hon-Yong (for a Moscow-aligned DPRK) or Kim Tu-Bong (for a Beijing-aligned DPRK) would be pretty obvious candidates, for starters.

This makes it interesting. Once the Sino-Soviet split happens, I think both Moscow and Beijing would try to support a faction of coup plotters win to benefit their own.

I think the U.S. and the West would see a unified DPRK as another form of Yugoslavia or Albania: communist countries that are in the middle of either the USSR or China. Another possibility is this DPRK could also join the Non-Aligned Movement.

Remember in OTL, the U.S. preferred that Mao Zedong would rule post-war China and have some form of "Chinese Titoism" but that hopes for the PRC not to be aligned with the USSR faded rather quickly. Especially since the Korean War broke out with Soviet and Chinese support to the KPA.

 

[boredviewer1234]

I think Korea, while going to have a lot of hardship early on if reunited will have definitely not turn into the hellscape North Korea became will likely still have pretty big issues.

For example a united Korea will definitely become far more imporant for the Sino/Soviet conflict, given how Stalin initially was wary of not supporting it to much China's going to likely be dominant for the first couple of years which will have a interesting effect on relations.

 

[Gillan1220]

I think Korea, while going to have a lot of hardship early on if reunited will have definitely not turn into the hellscape North Korea became will likely still have pretty big issues.

For example a united Korea will definitely become far more imporant for the Sino/Soviet conflict, given how Stalin initially was wary of not supporting it to much China's going to likely be dominant for the first couple of years which will have a interesting effect on relations.

How do you think this United Communist Korea will play out during the Sino-Soviet conflict? It depends if it is Kim Il-Sung in power or if the two other candidates such as Pak Hon-Yong (Pro-USSR) or Kim Tu-Bong (Pro-China). If it is either of the two, then the DPRK would support the side of which it is aligned.

 

[boredviewer1234]

How do you think this United Communist Korea will play out during the Sino-Soviet conflict? It depends if it is Kim Il-Sung in power or if the two other candidates such as Pak Hon-Yong (Pro-USSR) or Kim Tu-Bong (Pro-China). If it is either of the two, then the DPRK would support the side of which it is aligned.

I am very unsure, mainly as Korea itself being united changes China's situation quite a bit, as early on Korea would be quite China dependent and I think would be a faultline after Stalin dies and he is denounced.

Mainly as Mao's son thanks to not being killed in Korea should still be alive which could have massive affects on the PRC's internal politics alongside the fact that Korea being secure could reduce the siege mentally present.

That said, given Korea's probably going to more wealthy than China sooner than later, given their smaller population and valuable industry I think it's quite easy to imagine small divergences in outlook and politically to arise overtime if their doctrine of communism is the same from the start even without the soviet union seeking to promote their own.

That and of course as you say no guarantee the Kim's will remain in power.

 

[Gillan1220]

I am very unsure, mainly as Korea itself being united changes China's situation quite a bit, as early on Korea would be quite China dependent and I think would be a faultline after Stalin dies and he is denounced.

Mainly as Mao's son thanks to not being killed in Korea should still be alive which could have massive affects on the PRC's internal politics alongside the fact that Korea being secure could reduce the siege mentally present.

That said, given Korea's probably going to more wealthy than China sooner than later, given their smaller population and valuable industry I think it's quite easy to imagine small divergences in outlook and politically to arise overtime if their doctrine of communism is the same from the start even without the soviet union seeking to promote their own.

That and of course as you say no guarantee the Kim's will remain in power.

I wonder if the Kims would even continue communism here or introduce Juche. Without a U.S.-backed ROK, it won't feel threatened or robbed of a chance to unite the peninsula.

Agree on Mao's son surviving since the KPA overruning the peninsula would mean the Chinese would not need to intervene on the DPRK's side. I could see Mao's son being some form of CCP official in the future. Maybe even becoming the General Secretary of the CCP. Meaning too Deng Xiaoping's rule would be butterflied away.

A Sino-Soviet split would still occur either way. Having the two largest communist nations on Earth border each other would mean conflict is inevitable. Especially since Mao and Stalin distrusted each other. Both ideologies (Maoism and Stalinism) had different outlooks on how to spread the communist revolution to the third-world countries. Maybe without China intervening in the Korean War and the Sino-Soviet split still happens, the U.S. would still seek rapprochement with the PRC.

 

[boredviewer1234]

A Sino-Soviet split would still occur either way. Having the two largest communist nations on Earth border each other would mean conflict is inevitable. Especially since Mao and Stalin distrusted each other. Both ideologies (Maoism and Stalinism) had different outlooks on how to spread the communist revolution to the third-world countries. Maybe without China intervening in the Korean War and the Sino-Soviet split still happens, the U.S. would still seek rapprochement with the PRC.

I will be honest, I agree in theory the PRC and USSR are destined for conflict, given their turbulent history as communist parties is just to bitter and alongside different ideas of how socialism will be achieved I think their romance period can vary, I think North Korea's existence as a buffer state and the need to work together to save probably helped keep them together but that being said a world where China, Korea soon become socialist so soon could lead to a red scare wave that keeps them circling each other's wagons for a bit. After that period, once the PRC or you could say Mao feels China no longer needs to put up with the USSR in exchange for aid we will see a the Sino Soviet rivalry begin.

Though I wonder if the US might try and seek reproachment for Korea sooner as a initial test, given their might be less bad blood given less bad memories, less a Korea lobby and try to hope reach a Yugoslavia agreement. I don't Korea would agree given recent historical history of Hegemons promising to protect them like China, the US south Korea ect just think we might see a bit of a different roue that leads to US/PRC allaince.

 

[Gillan1220]

I will be honest, I agree in theory the PRC and USSR are destined for conflict, given their turbulent history as communist parties is just to bitter and alongside different ideas of how socialism will be achieved I think their romance period can vary, I think North Korea's existence as a buffer state and the need to work together to save probably helped keep them together but that being said a world where China, Korea soon become socialist so soon could lead to a red scare wave that keeps them circling each other's wagons for a bit. After that period, once the PRC or you could say Mao feels China no longer needs to put up with the USSR in exchange for aid we will see a the Sino Soviet rivalry begin.

Though I wonder if the US might try and seek reproachment for Korea sooner as a initial test, given their might be less bad blood given less bad memories, less a Korea lobby and try to hope reach a Yugoslavia agreement. I don't Korea would agree given recent historical history of Hegemons promising to protect them like China, the US south Korea ect just think we might see a bit of a different roue that leads to US/PRC allaince.

I could see this DPRK becoming Yugoslavia of which had descent relations with the U.S. and the West.

 

[rfmcdonald]

I think that, with Korea unified under stable frontiers, this DPRK might well evolve in more liberal or at least functional form. Without having to face the unspoken existential challenge of the ROK, there would be that much less pressure for over militarization.

A Vietnam of the north?