Geopolitical effects of a pro-Soviet united communist Korea?

[Ryker of Terra]

What if instead having a Korean peninsula divided between a communist North and capitalist South, we had an entirely communist Korea dominated by the USSR? I've seen a few threads like this, but they were mostly focused on what Korea itself would be like, as opposed to the geopolitical calculus that would result from this scenario. For the sake of clarity, let's say that this Korea stands as firmly in the Soviet camp as Mongolia or Bulgaria, possibly including a Soviet Army garrison on its soil, with no Kim monarchy or Juche bullshit.

Now I'm not sure how this could come about. IOTL the Americans offered to divide the occupation zones along the 38th parallel and the Soviets went with it. Maybe have the Americans just concede Korea altogether, though they're unlikely to do so without Soviet concessions elsewhere, which I would like to avoid to keep everything outside Korea the same as OTL. Maybe the Americans, expecting the upcoming bloodbath of Downfall, decide that Korea isn't that important or something. Regardless of the how, what would be the geopolitical effects of this?


For one, this would give the Soviets more influence in East Asia and a warm-water port farther south than Vladivostok. What can they do with this?

For another, there would be no Korean War. This is a big one. The US was downsizing its military at the time until war broke out and gave them a wake-up call that communism had to be contained more directly. It also showed them that China would not tolerate a pro-US state on its borders, which as I understand was the reason they never tried invading North Vietnam. So maybe the US is a bit more complacent until the Indochinese Wars give them the equivalent wake-up call?

Yet another thing is China. Apparently Truman was willing to stand aside and let Mao take Taiwan until the Korean War, which means that Chiang is done. With China feeling hemmed in by a pro-Soviet Korea and no Taiwan as a sticking point, I imagine there would be Sino-American rapprochement far earlier.


What do you think geopolitics will be like in this scenario compared to OTL? Discuss!

 

[Nivek]

Japan will get more power ITTL

 

[Ryker of Terra]

Japan will get more power ITTL

I can see them becoming even more of an economic powerhouse than OTL because South Korea won't exist next door, meaning more business for Japan, but would the US be as politically lenient as OTL? It was the Korean War that made them lift some of the pressure from Japan when communism's violent expansion became apparent. In this scenario a united commie Korea exists because the Americans just wrote it off at the end of WW2, not because of an expansionist war waged by a communist power.

 

[Nivek]

I can see them becoming even more of an economic powerhouse than OTL because South Korea won't exist next door, meaning more business for Japan, but would the US be as politically lenient as OTL? It was the Korean War that made them lift some of the pressure from Japan when communism's violent expansion became apparent. In this scenario a united commie Korea exists because the Americans just wrote it off at the end of WW2, not because of an expansionist war waged by a communist power.

Possible as the republicans just got unlimited ammo against the Dems

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

There will be knock-ons for Europe. One should not forget that many nations participated in the Korean War, notably Britain. Sending British troops to fight in Korea was a major policy step by the Labour Government then in power, and almost certainly affected the election held in 1951.

Korea was also the first commitment of troops to combat under "UN command". (The US-led Iraq invasion of 2003 was UN-approved.) The presence of Turkish troops contributed to the admission of Turkey to NATO in 1953.

 

[DUWANG]

Japan will get more power ITTL

But didn't the Korean War help to rebuild Japan both economically and militarily since it was now the carrier to the eastern front of the Cold War?
Without it we could see a slower reconstruction. Maybe even for West Germany. As far as I know West German integration and export rose thanks to the Korean War boosting demand.

 

[Nivek]

But didn't the Korean War help to rebuild Japan both economically and militarily since it was now the carrier to the eastern front of the Cold War?
Without it we could see a slower reconstruction. Maybe even for West Germany. As far as I know West German integration and export rose thanks to the Korean War boosting demand.

tree vs forest, the war did helped but now the politics will help more, Truman and the Dems are fucked and doomed, OTL Eisenhower refused the dem nomination as he considered truman weak, ITTL he will directly join the GOP and Critize Truman Harder, 1952 will be a bloodbath for the dems, heck, ITTL EIsenhower might embrace the Military industrial complex even more than OTL

 

[Dan1988]

There's the People's Republic of Korea that was formed immediately in the wake of Japan's surrender (and hence the immediate origins of North Korea), but even then that wasn't explicitly pro-Soviet until the USSR actively co-opted them and killed off those who resisted - mainly by violating the original structures by which the People's Committees - the base of local government at the time - were organized and what their powers actually were.

 

[Ryker of Terra]

I had this thought that with no Korean War to show them why that's a bad idea, the Americans might try to invade North Vietnam only to get pushed back by China because they still don't want a capitalist state on their borders. Then the Indochinese War becomes like a mix between OTL Korean and Vietnam Wars, from open warfare to an insurgency that devolves into great big quagmire.

Any other ideas?

 

[yack302]

On the flip side; the US maybe less bold to "hold the line," in Vietnam. Without the victory of saving the ROK from communist takeover there would be no precedence for holding and defending a split country in Asia for the US. On the other hand it may result in our military policy being more aggressive due to a lack of fear of Chinese intervention, and pushing into North Vietnam early in the conflict. Interesting change to history that would have more long term and profound impacts than one would expect.

 

[boredviewer1234]

On the flip side; the US maybe less bold to "hold the line," in Vietnam. Without the victory of saving the ROK from communist takeover there would be no precedence for holding and defending a split country in Asia for the US. On the other hand it may result in our military policy being more aggressive due to a lack of fear of Chinese intervention, and pushing into North Vietnam early in the conflict. Interesting change to history that would have more long term and profound impacts than one would expect.

I think it would depend on what you mean hold the line.

For example the US was involved in Vietnam due to subsidizing the French empire, paying like 75% of the cost of the the fighting for the French fighting to maintain it and sort of naturally ballooned from there on.

It's also important to remember the USSR helped make the situation in Indochina ''tenable'' creating North/South Vietnam in 1954, as they where afraid of it escalating to much into a wider war like Korea did.

Rather than pushing into North Vietnam it might be straight invasion of Vietnam by the time of intervention, and a attempt to save the remaining French and local anti Communist forces located mainly in inland Indochina.

 

[William_F]

What would be the national flag of such pro-Soviet united communist Korea?

 

[ric350]

Prior to the Korean War, under SoD Johnson, the US Navy/Marines were on the chopping block. There were strong pressures (both financial and inter-service) to reduce the Navy to, for all intents and purposes, a littoral force. The Marines would cease to be a service branch and become more of a “special branch” along the lines of the SEAL teams, or Green Berets. The US Army forces would be reduced to a pre WW2 level. Also under these circumstances I can’t see Admiral Rickover getting the funding to build Nautilus, so the US nuclear submarine service is probably still-born. This would probably be due in no small part to USAF not wanting the Navy to get any nuclear capabilities, (not unlike the USAF/Army “agreement” on fixed wing aircraft).

The lions share of defense spending would then go to the USAF and its nuclear based weapon systems. After all, all future wars would be fought with missiles and long range bombers, right?, uh right??

So, in a sense (as I’ve implied in this forum before), Kim Il Sung was responsible for saving the US Navy!😉

ric350

 

[TerenceofGod]

A Pro-Soviet Korea will force Japan to re-militarize quickly. The status of Taiwan becomes a very important foreign policy decision for China, since now it has the Soviets to screen against US forces in Japan. The Vietnam war also become very important for China, since it will not want to be hemmed in by Soviet-aligned states.

 

[William_F]

If Taiwan falls to the CCP in this scenario that would mean all the mayors of the big cities in Taiwan are officials from the CCP.

 

[Nivek]

If Taiwan falls to the CCP in this scenario that would mean all the mayors of the big cities in Taiwan are officials from the CCP.

That means the sugar industry and japanese capitol there is now on japanese,if the commies take advantage or squandered it is anyone guess.

Flash Forward no microchip and Rockefeller agreement

 

[William_F]

That means the sugar industry and japanese capitol there is now on japanese,if the commies take advantage or squandered it is anyone guess.

Flash Forward no microchip and Rockefeller agreement

Of course there would be the risk that the communists will squander the advantage.

 

[William_F]

In relation to the government of Taiwan Province under the rule of the CCP they would have a provincial governor that would also be a CCP official