United Korea post 1945 under the Kim Dynasty without a war. Effects?

[James G]

Let us say that Korea ended up united a few years after the Japanese surrender. Local circumstances / external events see no strong native South Korean movement and the United States isn't interested in seeing the country divided. Without tanks, but rather cadres of volunteers and the backing of the people, the North ensures that South Korea never gets off the ground and Kim has the whole nation long before the Fifties come around.
What does a united Korea and thus no Korean War mean for Asia and superpower relations afterwards?

[gillan1220]

Kim would probably turn it to a pro-Soviet state or alternatively he would go on the path of Albania or Yugoslavia. Of course, I'd see the PRC wanting to influence United Korean affairs. On the other hand, it probably won't be so hostile to the United States since there is no Korean War to speak of.

[stevep]

   Well without the Korean war Japan doesn't get a big economic boost in the early 50's.  On the other hand assuming that the cold war still develops Japan is now the front line allied base in NE Asia so could become more important for that reason.

  Also Britain is somewhat better off as it was just about pulling out of the post war economic crisis when the demands of the war imposed another economic demand.  Just possibly it might mean that Attlee wins the 51 election which could have longer term influences in Britain although impacts elsewhere would be unclear. 

  For the US the conflict did prompt a significant degree of rearmament as they found themselves very short of trained forces when the crisis developed.  Without Korea would something else prompt that?

  Its going to be very bad for the Koreans as a whole as I can't really see the 1st Kim not creating a personality cult like Stalin and Mao did. 

[lordroel]

Apr 25, 2021 19:39:30 GMT James G said:

Let us say that Korea ended up united a few years after the Japanese surrender. Local circumstances / external events see no strong native South Korean movement and the United States isn't interested in seeing the country divided. Without tanks, but rather cadres of volunteers and the backing of the people, the North ensures that South Korea never gets off the ground and Kim has the whole nation long before the Fifties come around.
What does a united Korea and thus no Korean War mean for Asia and superpower relations afterwards?

Well according to this thread: What if: North Korea wins the Korean War (1950s)

A less paranoid North Korea might also have been more open to Chinese-style economic reforms, Lankov believes. And perhaps North Korea would have felt less of a need to develop nuclear weapons or ICBMs. Still, Korea would have been united under rulers who could sleep soundly at night while their people ate grass to survive.

[stevep]

Apr 26, 2021 15:10:37 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 25, 2021 19:39:30 GMT James G said:

Let us say that Korea ended up united a few years after the Japanese surrender. Local circumstances / external events see no strong native South Korean movement and the United States isn't interested in seeing the country divided. Without tanks, but rather cadres of volunteers and the backing of the people, the North ensures that South Korea never gets off the ground and Kim has the whole nation long before the Fifties come around.
What does a united Korea and thus no Korean War mean for Asia and superpower relations afterwards?

Well according to this thread: What if: North Korea wins the Korean War (1950s)

A less paranoid North Korea might also have been more open to Chinese-style economic reforms, Lankov believes. And perhaps North Korea would have felt less of a need to develop nuclear weapons or ICBMs. Still, Korea would have been united under rulers who could sleep soundly at night while their people ate grass to survive.

  True there is an option there.  Although it might end up seeing China or Russia as a threat?  Albeit that neither of those are likely to be deterred by a small nuclear force and more likely possibly to move militarily to prevent such a capacity being created in the 1st place.  Which since the unified Korea was a communist state probably wouldn't be greatly opposed by the west either.

[lordroel]

Apr 26, 2021 15:55:21 GMT stevep said:

Apr 26, 2021 15:10:37 GMT lordroel said:

Well according to this thread: What if: North Korea wins the Korean War (1950s)

A less paranoid North Korea might also have been more open to Chinese-style economic reforms, Lankov believes. And perhaps North Korea would have felt less of a need to develop nuclear weapons or ICBMs. Still, Korea would have been united under rulers who could sleep soundly at night while their people ate grass to survive.

  True there is an option there.  Although it might end up seeing China or Russia as a threat?  Albeit that neither of those are likely to be deterred by a small nuclear force and more likely possibly to move militarily to prevent such a capacity being created in the 1st place.  Which since the unified Korea was a communist state probably wouldn't be greatly opposed by the west either.

We would see a bigger US presence in Japan as a unified communist Korea would be a big threat to Japan.