Korea - UN or...?

[Legbreaker]

The books only include US and Soviet units as being in Korea and no mention of the North or South Korean forces.
Additionally, a quick study of the unit histories of those involved seems to indicate the conflict followed a similar pattern as occurred in 1950-1953. The US only had one Division in the region at the beginning of hostilities with several more arriving over the next six months (give or take) and the Soviets took the place of the Chinese 45 years before, coming into the picture in late 1997.

Given what is therefore likely to be North Korean aggression kicking things off (again), the technical continuation of the 1950's war which involved the UN on the side of the South, and the involvement of Australian and New Zealand troops (neither of which are members of NATO), as well as the originally intended involvement of Canada, I'm interested in hearing peoples opinion on who's backing the South this time.

Is it the UN (I tend to think so) or has the US gone to bat for the South off their own backs and called upon their allies to assist

Why

[Raellus]

SEATO, perhaps I'm not up on my SEATO history but it seems like a logical organizational umbrella for the West to run Korean ops under.

I'm not sure how well the U.N. would be functioning, if it's functioning at all, after the U.S.S.R. and its allies invade China. Maybe it's a U.N. operation in name only.

[Legbreaker]

Korea kicked off on almost the same day as US forces crossed the front in support of Germany. The UN was absolutely still functioning at that point - the first nukes were still seven months away and the UN HQ itself wasn't hit until approximately 11 months after hostilities in Korea resumed.

[James Langham]

SEATO, perhaps I'm not up on my SEATO history but it seems like a logical organizational umbrella for the West to run Korean ops under.

I'm not sure how well the U.N. would be functioning, if it's functioning at all, after the U.S.S.R. and its allies invade China. Maybe it's a U.N. operation in name only.

I would guess that the UN ceases to effectively function with the Sino-Soviet War as vetos in the Security Council will stop any action against any party.

The only way may be for the US to use old resolutions to justify involvement.

We know from canon about Australian involvement, maybe we could add the Canadian contingent from Sri Lanka (I'm not sure what date the vehicle from the NATO Vehicle Handbook has them there but the could transfer).

From the British Army there is the possibility of a small force of Gurkhas, probably by creating a new battalion.

Maybe an interesting game could be centred around a Japanese medical unit (they are unlikely to send combat troops due to their constitution). These would be disliked by the Koreans due to their history in Korea.

Thailand might be willing to provide a battalion or two.

Considering how quickly the war in Korea turns nasty with chemical and nuclear weapons, most countries will not want to become involved.

[Legbreaker]

...maybe we could add the Canadian contingent from Sri Lanka (I'm not sure what date the vehicle from the NATO Vehicle Handbook has them there but the could transfer).

The plate is from 1996. The notes state:

"Canadian forces were sent to Ceylon in 1993 following the Tamil Insurrection of 1991 as part of a United Nations peacekeeping force. Four companies of Canadian armoured infantry joined troops from Greece, Finland, Australia, Sweden, and Italy on that island in enforcing the shaky truce decreed by a United Nations resolution of February 1993."

It's my guess the Canadians, as well as the Greeks and Italians, would have withdrawn their forces rather quickly once hostilities broke out between them. Likewise, I can't see Finland leaving troops there in the face of a possible Soviet attack through their country. That leaves just Sweden and Australia carrying the load. Any bets on what they'll be doing when the others pull out...

From the British Army there is the possibility of a small force of Gurkhas, probably by creating a new battalion.

Possible, but more likely they'd have been sent to China to support/reinforce British units listed in that country.

Considering how quickly the war in Korea turns nasty with chemical and nuclear weapons, most countries will not want to become involved.

It was no quicker than anywhere else on the planet. My guess is Nukes would have been withheld for as long as possible actually, given that the USSR didn't go into Korea until late 1997, after China was glowing in the dark and after the Nato offensive of 1996-97 was turned back (aided by tactical nukes).
I'm not sure if Korea had nukes in 1997, but if they did, I'm certain the Soviets would have done everything they could to dissuade their use before the Soviets were ready. With war raging right across the planet, any escalation of that sort is a very bad thing.

It's interesting to note the invasion of Alaska occurred shortly after nukes were first used. It would seem the Soviets were banking on their nukes to do nasty things to the US ability to respond effectively - it would seem likely the Soviets had been planning both the invasion and use of nukes for some time.

[James Langham]

The plate is from 1996. The notes state:
It's my guess the Canadians, as well as the Greeks and Italians, would have withdrawn their forces rather quickly once hostilities broke out between them. Likewise, I can't see Finland leaving troops there in the face of a possible Soviet attack through their country. That leaves just Sweden and Australia carrying the load. Any bets on what they'll be doing when the others pull out...

Assuming they can get transport...

Possible, but more likely they'd have been sent to China to support/reinforce British units listed in that country.

Probably but it might be an option for political reasons.

It was no quicker than anywhere else on the planet. My guess is Nukes would have been withheld for as long as possible actually, given that the USSR didn't go into Korea until late 1997, after China was glowing in the dark and after the Nato offensive of 1996-97 was turned back (aided by tactical nukes).
I'm not sure if Korea had nukes in 1997, but if they did, I'm certain the Soviets would have done everything they could to dissuade their use before the Soviets were ready. With war raging right across the planet, any escalation of that sort is a very bad thing.

Chemical is likely from the outset though.

It's interesting to note the invasion of Alaska occurred shortly after nukes were first used. It would seem the Soviets were banking on their nukes to do nasty things to the US ability to respond effectively - it would seem likely the Soviets had been planning both the invasion and use of nukes for some time.

If there weren't plans there is something wrong, a sensible military plans for EVERYTHING but thanks, I hadn't noticed that connection before.

[Legbreaker]

Assuming they can get transport...

I've a feeling Greece and Italy would bring their people home very quickly after withdrawing from Nato. With war raging in China for a year or so already, as well as conflict ramping up in Europe, not to mention tensions between Turkey and Greece increasing, especially over Cyprus...

Without those two countries, the remainder wouldn't have much hope of carrying out their mission. The Canadian troops would also be needed to meet their obligations as part of Nato and for at home. Four companies of mechanised infantry might not seem a lot to the US, but to a small military they're a fairly sizable chunk of firepower. Add in the support units which are sure to be there with them, and it could well be upwards of a full battalion. Those numbers are well worth sending a ship (or ships) and pulling out.

Australia would be able to withdraw their troops using their own naval assets (as would the Greeks and Italians I would hope). Finland and Sweden would I'm guessing be the "junior partners" and probably only have a medical team or platoon or so of MPs deployed. In all likelihood they could fly home on a chartered jumbo (if they didn't have their own transport).

Ceylon/Sri Lanka would be left to it's own devices, probably heading straight back into civil war again.

[Legbreaker]

SEATO, perhaps I'm not up on my SEATO history but it seems like a logical organizational umbrella for the West to run Korean ops under.

From Wiki

Pakistan withdrew in 1972 after the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, in which East Pakistan successfully seceded with the aid of India. France withdrew financial support in 1975. After a final exercise on 20 February 1976, the organization was formally dissolved on 30 June 1977

That would seem to rule that organisation out then...

ANZUS is a possibility to draw Australia in, but not New Zealand (US and NZ were no longer allies as of 1989).
ASEAN is another major organisation, however they're economic in nature and include communist countries who might be a little difficult to convince anyway.

[Raellus]

Korea kicked off on almost the same day as US forces crossed the front in support of Germany. The UN was absolutely still functioning at that point - the first nukes were still seven months away and the UN HQ itself wasn't hit until approximately 11 months after hostilities in Korea resumed.

Yes, but assuming that the USSR and WTO either withdraw from or are booted out of the UN, its pretty much a rump organization. Might the UN sanction W. Germany and the U.S. for their invasion of E. Germany and Poland The UN's never existed during a world war so is it really going to continue to exist in anythign more than name during WWIII Just because UN HQ isn't a crater yet doesn't mean a whole lot.

The UN could say it's running the show in Korea, but how much financial, organizational, and military resources and control would it have at its disposal

SEATO's out (thanks for the lesson) but wasn't there some other SOUTHPAC-typle alliance in place between Western-aligned Asia-Pacific nations I still think there's a better option than the UN to be running innitial KWII ops.

[Rainbow Six]

I'm inclined to think that in the outset at least Korea would "officially" be run under UN auspices on the basis that (as far as I know) the first Korean War ended in a ceasefire, not an armistice. So the North Korean invasion in 1996 is a resumption of the hostilities suspended in 1953, not a new conflict per se, and as such would be covered under the original UN resolution.

However, given that the main participants on the Allied side are likely to be the US and the ROK my thinking is that it would be de jure a UN operation but de facto a US operation (isn't the CIC Combined Forces always a US Four Star anyway) And once the UN falls apart whose authority the troops are fighting under probably becomes a moot point. (On a related note, I am convinced that there is a reference in one of the modules to the "UN General Assembly falling apart" at some point in time (or words to that effect) but am unsure where - Armies of the Night maybe)

With regards other nations' participation, I like Jame's suggestion about a Japanese contingent. I think the UK's resources would be stretched almost to breaking without also committing to Korea though, other than possily the units in Canada as I suggested in my recent piece on the Anglo German Brigade. Thailand makes sense - out of curiosity anyone know if there's any references to Thai troops serving in Korea in the V2 Bangkok Sourcebook A Phillipines contingent maybe Singapore

[Rainbow Six]

The UN could say it's running the show in Korea, but how much financial, organizational, and military resources and control would it have at its disposal

Yeah, I think that's the point I was trying to make in my earlier post...legally the UN says it is running the show, but in practice it's the US calling the shots (literally as well as metaphorically).

I should have probably voted "other"...!

[Raellus]

Yeah, I think that's the point I was trying to make in my earlier post...legally the UN says it is running the show, but in practice it's the US calling the shots (literally as well as metaphorically).

I should have probably voted "other"...!

Sorry Rainbow- I should have just +1'ed your first post. I think you nailed it on the head yet again with your distinction between de jure jurisdiction (nominally the UN) and de facto jurisdiction (likely a U.S.-led coalition of some sort).

[Rainbow Six]

Sorry Rainbow- I should have just +1'ed your first post. I think you nailed it on the head yet again with your distinction between de jure jurisdiction (nominally the UN) and de facto jurisdiction (likely a U.S.-led coalition of some sort).

No worries mate...the point I was really trying to get to in my second post (which I didn't make clear) was that you summed it up much more concisely (and probably more clearly!) than I did!

[Webstral]

It's interesting to conjecture what kind of contribution New Zealand might have made to Korea once the fighting kicked off. The political attitudes of the Kiwis would be critical and hard to predict from where I'm sitting. New Zealand effectively cancelled the US-NZ connection in ANZUS over nuclear issues. In the context of an ongoing Cold War, would the Kiwis continue to keep the US at arm's length over the nuclear issue, or would the ongoing hazard presented by a revived Soviet Union have served to mend fences I really don't know.

Several important factors exist. In no particular order of precedence:

The Soviet Union still exists, and they had to kill an awful lot of people in Eastern Europe to reverse the Velvet Revolution.

The Soviet Union invaded China, plain and simple. Lots of death, lots of destruction

The West Germans are responsible for the spread of the war to Europe. It's hard to believe that the US wasn't in on it at some level--especially when US forces join the fight in East Germany.

The DPRK invades the ROK. Whatever is happening in Germany, a country not directly involved in the fighting to that point invades another country not directly involved in the fighting to that point. Both nations are clients of the warring superpowers, but they are still each a sovereign nation.

The US is the de facto (nice one!) leader of the Allied effort to assist the ROK.


So, does New Zealand lean more towards justifiable reluctance to get involved in an expanded war started by the FRG with the collusion of the USA, or does New Zealand lean more towards supporting the ROK in spite of being on the outs with the US over nuke boats and the war in Europe I don't have any way of taking the pulse of New Zealanders in real life or conjecturing how they might feel in a v1 chronology. I'd like to think that they'd choose to support the ROK, even if this meant coming under the hand of US command structure in Korea. It's hard to say, though.

[Legbreaker]

Yes, but assuming that the USSR and WTO either withdraw from or are booted out of the UN, its pretty much a rump organization.

The USSR was boycotting the UN from January 1950 (months before Korea flared) over the refusal of each of it's component states to be granted a separate seat. Therefore, the lack of the USSR in the UN during T2K is a bit of a moot point due to the above precedent.

Might the UN sanction W. Germany and the U.S. for their invasion of E. Germany and Poland

The issue may well have been raised, but both the US and Britain possess the power of Veto. There's no way such a resolution could have been passed.

The UN could say it's running the show in Korea, but how much financial, organizational, and military resources and control would it have at its disposal

Same as always really.

...wasn't there some other SOUTHPAC-typle alliance in place between Western-aligned Asia-Pacific nations

Not as far as I'm aware. There's a handful of economic organisations, but next to nothing as far as military alliances able to take charge in Korea. A South Pacific organisation wouldn't have much cause to intervene in the northern hemisphere anyway.

...legally the UN says it is running the show, but in practice it's the US calling the shots (literally as well as metaphorically).

That's no different to 1950. The initial Resolution was a massive political win for the US, General MacArthur was placed in command (until he was sacked by Truman) and the bulk of troops involved were from the US.
However a total of 14 nations contributed forces with some countries (such as Australia) contributing a much greater percentage of their military strength than the US.

As mentioned, the Korean War of the 50's hasn't actually ended. The initial UN Resolutions still hold.

Can anyone who served in Korea shed some light on the reasons why they were stationed there Paul I'm guessing it had something to do with UN responsibilities.

It's interesting to conjecture what kind of contribution New Zealand might have made to Korea once the fighting kicked off.

My guess is they would be looking at the UN and acting under it's authority. As you mentioned, the lack of a military alliance between them and the US, or with South Korea will effectively preclude their involvement otherwise.