The Korean War

What if South Korea had invaded North Korea? What may the USA have done? Would the United States of America have had the right (in its own opinion) to assist then? Would the policy of containment still be relevant? Please tell me what you think.
-Amakatura Murou

[Scott]

It may have been politically more difficult for the United States to publicly justify its choice to assist South Korea, and may have even been a deal-breaker if the choice was very close. However, it does not contradict the pattern of America's behavior before and after that as a country willing to invade and occupy other countries not out of mere defense but to support its long-term financial interests and indirect security.

True, America's foreign patterns do prove our inherent desire to invade anyways. I believe we would have simply found other ways to support our actions; Truman's containment policy would have still been relevant, just not as pitied as when South Korea was invaded.
-Amakatura Murou

True, America's foreign patterns do prove our inherent desire to invade anyways. I believe we would have simply found other ways to support our actions; Truman's containment policy would have still been relevant, just not as pitied as when South Korea was invaded.

I don't think that does "prove our inherent desire to invade." That is, if by "America" you mean the people who live in the geographical area that is territory of "The United States." Since the US is in no meaningful sense democratic when you use the term "America" or the "US" I take it that you are referring to the decision makers and elites.

A brief glance over history should be enough to tell you what the decision makers and elites are interested in, and so what they would probably do.

In the concrete case of Korea, perhaps a parallel with Nicaragua works, where the US (read: US elites) used a proxy army to bring the country to heel—in violation of international law.

A brief glance over history should be enough to tell you what the decision makers and elites are interested in, and so what they would probably do.

In the concrete case of Korea, perhaps a parallel with Nicaragua works, where the US (read: US elites) used a proxy army to bring the country to heel—in violation of international law.

I did mean United States (apologies), and a brief look at current events and the U.S.'s continued interest in the Middle East would suggest our nature- wanting to stick our noses everywhere, with full reason or without.
-AM

American assistance aside, the legitimacy of a democratic unification movement among the Koreas may have held stronger than the communist movement. Having said that, moreso than democratic or communist, the nationalist movement is what really entangles political theories. As seen with the Sinification of Marxism by Mao and Stalin's WWII propaganda, nationalism can be embedded in the governmental concentration of communism rather efficiently, whereas a democratic government put factions on ballots in rivalries at the very core. Had the nationalist message being radiated by the North Korean government outweighed the communist movement, a unification movement prompted by belligerence from South Korea, though democratic, may have been better received by the people of North Korea; therefore, foreign aid would have been misplaced on either side.