Korea. Just wonderin any war vets around here? Anyways what all do you guys know about this war?

Korea certainly isnt the forgotten war, I did lots of it for my GCSE history exam.
Its an interesting war, in that its the first one where the UN took part, and you can see the ramifications today: communism vs capitalism: the direct result. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that more people died in Korea than in vietnam.

Its very similair to vietnam in many respects, and the chinese fought it in the same way, by stealth, they didnt actually shoot the US or british soldiers (though they came close) however they supplied troops to fight the south koreans and weapons to the North: a very tricky way to fight a war

there was a korean war?...

In terms of fame, Korea was a forgotten war. But that does not mean it is not an interesting war.

If the Koreans had been more careful and had guarded against McArthur's landing, North Vietnam would have won. If the USA had been more cautious later and didn't make the mistake of chosen resevoir, then I think Korea would be all democratic by now.

just a bit of useless information that you probably already know,


The Korean War has not technically ended, no treaty or cease-fire has been signed and nothing to any effect of oficially ending the war has happened except for the obvious stoppage of military action.


By the way, if you go to N. Korea(you have to take a tour startign in S. Korea) don't pick your nose, you may be shot.(The wierd information you learn in 7th grade Geography when your teacher forces you to watch video's for at least a week straight)

Afghanistan used to be known as the forgotten war in the 1980s, but I don't think many people will be forgetting it for a while now. (And as a consequence, 'Afghanistan' was given as a nickname to an Australian cricketer - Mark Waugh= the forgotten waugh, but i don't think many of you will know much about that...)

As for Korea, what do you want to know? Military history is one of my major areas of study and postgrad research, so I'd like to think I know a leetle bit. An interesting war, in some senses.

There are many forgotten wars, even today. There are low-level wars in Africa which don't even have names and are being fought with hatchets, knives and other kinds of primitive but effective weopans. Like the civil war in Zaire/Congo, the wars in Angola and Mozambique and the wars betw Tutsi and Hutus ..........
These are the real forgotten wars. I would hardly think that the 50 plus yr old Korean War is forgotten.

Also forgotten wars are the drug wars ,like on colombia.And all the time's that the U.S did secret covered action's with special troop's were forgotten wars too.

I dont think that war is forgotten in Korea! (where both sides are armed to the teeth). Or in the minds and hearts of those who fought there.

Truly forgotten wars are those that the loser is so vanquished, that nobody cares any more. Look at the plight of the native American - that war essentially isnt even mentioned in schools! I remember discussing the Korean War in school, at least....

One vet here, ME, Sinai, 1982, Grenada, 1983Originally posted by Graeme the mad
Korea certainly isnt the forgotten war, I did lots of it for my GCSE history exam.
Its an interesting war, in that its the first one where the UN took part, and you can see the ramifications today: communism vs capitalism: the direct result. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that more people died in Korea than in vietnam.[b]For the US, 57,000 in 10 years of Nam, 53,000 for 3 years of Korea.

[b]Its very similair to vietnam in many respects, and the chinese fought it in the same way, by stealth, they didnt actually shoot the US or british soldiers (though they came close) however they supplied troops to fight the south koreans and weapons to the North: a very tricky way to fight a war Hmm, sorry, very wrong here.
The first year of the war was extremly fluid, and the second two years resembled the First world war more then anything else.
The Chinese fought nothing like the Vietnamese, and and did indeed shoot and kill many US and Commonwealth, as well as UN nation troops.
Start your study with the Chosin revosior, where 250,000 Chinese attack the US 1st Marine division, and cause the entire US 8th army to retreat.

For the Brits and Canadians here, your major formation was the Commonweath brigade, which fought with 8th army in the eastern part of the line.

My Father was in Korea twice. In the occupation of South korea following WW2, and during the war. In 1946 the army, with some foresight or more likely lucky contigency planning, had him and another officer survey a hypothetical defense perimiter around the ports of Taegu & Pusan.

The Korean war was definently the forgotten war...

Angola and Mozambique? Zaire and Congo? Who cares?

So what if a ten-dollar camel was killed by some religious fanatics in a jungle somewhere?

Then, there were the Indian wars...the Sioux fighting the Chippewa or Cherokee or some other group that you really can't tell the difference from. Well, maybe ten people died of arrow wounds...but teachers (in America) like to cram that crap down kids' throats for three years.

Please I urge you all to ignore that last disrespectful post.
And to alll the vets out there: Thank you.

General MacArthur wanted to nuke 22 cities in the China/Korea/Russia area including Pyongyang, Beijing, Tsingtao and Vladivostok. Talk about psycho.:crazyeyes

"Angola and Mozambique? Zaire and Congo? Who cares?

So what if a ten-dollar camel was killed by some religious fanatics in a jungle somewhere?"

The death toll from the fighting betw the Tutsis and Hutus ran into the hundreds of thousands. I am also fairly sure that the casualties from those other wars ran into the tens of thousands. It's because of people like you who don't care that such things passed unnoticed in this age of the Internet and realtime TV. Sad.

MacArthur was an arrogant SOB, but he sure knew how to fight a war...

Okay, I apologize if I offended anyone with my post - but I think it's high time people realized that Africa has been at war with itself for hundreds of years, and will continue to be no matter how much intervention we (the United States, and other industrialized nations) provide.

There's no forgotten war in Africa, because that war is still being fought and will be until one group has suffocated the rest of the continent. Sad, but true.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Angola and Mozambique? Zaire and Congo? Who cares?

Then, there were the Indian wars ... but teachers (in America) like to cram that crap down kids' throats for three years. [/B]
I, too, don't wish to let this go. Listen, you foolish 16 year old boy, your ideas are painfully misinformed. What is being crammed down your throats is true history - the indian "wars" (often whites massacreing unarmed indians) had many tens of thousands of victims. Who cares? Any respectable human being. That the victims are not bigoted white minnesotans does not mean they don't matter. The US and state gov'ts all had policies to wipe out indians. Your grand first governor, among others, ordered the killing of any indian on sight. That's called genocide - mentioning it as a part of your history is simply making you aware that even this great country has some dark pages in its past.

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Okay, I apologize if I offended anyone with my post - but I think it's high time people realized that Africa has been at war with itself for hundreds of years...

Apology accepted.

Actually, most of the wars being fought in Africa are a direct result of colonialism. Besides, europe has been at war with itself far more than Africa in the past few centuries. And on a grander scale. Before colonialism, Africa was just like any other continent - waxing and waning kingdoms, wars here and there. Current borders resulting from colonialism, the elimination of traditional leaders (royal families, for instance), disruption of trade, etc, have exacerbated problems. Yeah, they must sort it out themselves, but others are not free of responsibility.

I read yesterday in one of the British newspapers that on an island called Anjouan between Mozambique and Madagascar, there have been 24 coups in the last 24 years. While it is very rare that anyone is killed in these attacks, it is worrying that this sort of thing can go on and we know nothing about it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4267403,00.html

At this rate, somebody will confuse the Anjouans with the Italians... :lol:

I just saw on CNN that the 10th Mountain Division from Ft. Drum NY is deploying to Tajikistan for operation Enduring Freedom.

I am a Somolia veteran and I served in the 10th as a member of the QRF in Mogadishu July-December 1993. My battalion fought to rescue the Army Rangers on October 3rd.

If anyone wants to write to the troops overseas you can address a letter to " any soldier " c/o your local USO. Believe me, its nice to get letters from home when your "over there".

Anyway, as far as Korea, I know my battalion, 2/14 Infantry faught at Heatbreak Ridge with the Marines, and at Hamburger Hill. Both very bloody battles. Our guidon flag had battle streamers for those places.

I believe Korea was refered to as the forgotten war after it ended with no clear winner, no real change in Korea itself and Americans tried to put it behind them at the time. It was kind of humiliating after the great victory of WWII less than a decade earlier.

Today there is a great monument to the veterans of Korea on the Mall in Washingto DC, I visited it earlier this year. It seems that recently people want to know more about the war. I think that in itself is a great tribute to all the soldiers who faught there from all countries. They are not forgotten.

And to Spycatcher34, your very welcome!:cool:

MacArthur was either a great or lousy general depending on what side of the bed he got up on the morning. One of the most irregular generals ever.

On one hand, he has had some brilliant campaigns, such as the defense of New Guinea and the landings at Inchon.

On the other hand, he lost the Phillipines even though he had more planes and troops than the Japanese, and he was completely outsmarted by the Chinese when they got involved in Korea.

:crazyeyes

"I read yesterday in one of the British newspapers that on an island called Anjouan between Mozambique and Madagascar, there have been 24 coups in the last 24 years."

I read somewhere that as of the 1980s, Bolivia has averaged one coup every 9 MONTHS over the course of its history since independence. Don't know if that's still the case though, I read it sometime in the 80s. Seems that's their regular form of government change, so coups aren't really newsworthy there....

Anjouan? Haven't heard of it as an independent country--is it the main island of the Comoros, or is it disputed between Mozambique and Madagascar?

Hi All,

There is a movie (I think it's called The Survivors) in which a charactor played by Walther Matthaw says he was in the big war- Korea. His interlocutorutor says "Korea wasn't big", to which he replies "It was to me".

Anyway my father served in Korea in the British Army. He was there during the time the UN line was broken by the Chinese- he has lots of interesting stories. Once, just after I started shaving, I was using an old shaving brush from the back of the bathroom cupboard. My dad saw me and told me where it came from. It was from a deceased U.S soldier. Apparently on a number of occasions (I don't know how many) my father's unit came across groups of GIs who had been killed after their sentries had dozed off or lost concentration.

I put the brush back where I found it.

On the other hand, he lost the Phillipines even though he had more planes and troops than the Japanese, and he was completely outsmarted by the Chinese when they got involved in Korea. If you read the dispatchs and examine the history, and Roosevelt's plan, you'll find the PI, along with Guam, Wake, and lots of other lesser know places were sacrificed by Roosevelt and the Joint Chiefs. The PI was promised immediate aid which never came, for various reasons. MacArthur's troops and planes were vastly outnumbered by the bloodthirsty Japanese, and sadly, the equipemnt of the Japanese was also superior to that which was rationed to Mac Arthur in the PI.

As for the Chinese, Mac Arthur was not allowed to have a free hand in accomplishing the military objectives. Truman was personally responsible for the needless slaughter of tens of thousands of Americans. Few Presidents in history have been as incompetent as Truman, as the documented record of memoranda that Truman tried hard to cover up has come to light over the last 20 years.

The American military should have been allowed to dispose of the Red Threat in Korea after the dastardly sneak attack by the evil Red Chinese. Truman should have been removed from office, tried for cowardice in the face of the enemy, and handed the appropriate punishment for treason and betrayal of the nation in wartime.

Mac Arthur warned what the consequences of Truman's actions would be.... years of death with no hope of victory. To this day, the Korean war has not ended. I've served in Korea to help contain the Red menace, and relatives of mine have died at the hands of the evil Red Chinese for maltreatment in the evil Red Chinese POW camps. Mac Arthur was the most brilliant military mind of the 20th century, despite the latter day historical revisionists and Truman apologists.

:)

http://www.civfanatics.com/uploads/america1s.jpg

I thought General MacArthur wanted to nuke the cities of Manchuria and northern China cos of the Chinese 'volunteers' participating in the attack on US-led UN forces in Korea and was removed from command by President Truman? Apparently the President didn't want America's hands to be soiled by the blood of tens of millions of civilian deaths, not so soon after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

He also wanted to invade Manchuria. President Truman concluded that the risk wasn't worth it and overruled him on that as well. At that time, China was allied with the Soviet Union and it would meant war with the two Communist powers. And the Soviets had just gotten their A-bomb.

Well, that's my understanding. Pls correct me if I'm wrong.

But General MacArthur did a good job with Japan after WW2 during the US Occupation. Led to democracy and is now a strong, stable but militarily-crippled power. But unlike Germany, Japan never took up responsibility for their war. So the Occupation left something out. :rolleyes:

I thought General MacArthur wanted to nuke ... Mac Arthur's assessment of the Chinese and his ability to defeat them if they attacked was predicated on the ability to use the might of American strength to defeat an dastardly and downright evil enemy who chose to engage in war and kill Americans. Truman is the first President in the history of America to deny an American army in the field the means to fight and win a war, yet force it to continue to fight with no intention of winning. Some European nations had this mindset in the past, but not America.

BTW, three presidents since Truman also bear the stain of dishonor and betrayal.... Kennedy (to a limited extent), Johnson (from my own home state :( ), and our only draft-dodger President, Clinton.

People often fixate on the nuclear question and hypotheticals, and some Truman "supporters" can get hysterical when discussing the issues... but the historical and unbiased documented record of memos, telexes, cables, meeting minutes... and Truman's subsequent cover up of embarrassing documentation (e.g., removal of information concerning his nuclear decisions and placement of key information in small locked boxes given to other people, like his female secretary, who had them for decades until discovered)... it is worth reading, but quite boring to do so.

It might suprise some people to know that Truman pretty much stood alone in wanting to use the Atom bomb against the Japanese.... Mac Arthur was specifically apalled that it was used against civilian-only targets, and did not approve of such employment.... further, there was absolutely no military necessity for it. The japanese, as we now know, had been planning to surrender since the Fall of 1944. In the April of 1945, the new American President Truman secretly turned down Japanese offer of surrender (thru diplomatic back channels) becuase the Japanese had one condition... that the Emperor survive. Truman restated publically "un-conditional surrender", and tens of thousands of American soldiers continued to die unnecessarily from late April of 1945 to August of 1945. That blood is on Truman's hands, alone. Only he wanted war, and his personal "pride" and stupid public dogma prevented peace. Make no mistake.... Truman's was the most monsterous treachery an American President can commit.

The ultimate betrayal was sealed when Truman finally accepted teh Japanese Surrender..... do you recall the terms? Unconditional... EXCEPT that the Emperor survive. All the dead, and unimaginable suffering by MILLIONS from April of 1945 to late August of 1945, plus millions killed in firebombings and hundreds of thousands incinerated in nuclear fireballs... for what? No net change in the victory and surrender conditions. Appalling.

If a person were to read the actual records of the decision to use nukes on Japan, almost every military advisor was opposed.... almost every cabinet official was opposed. Japan was in no position to continue the was, but Truman was obsessed with getting Stalin into the war by July 1945.

So this is the backdrop for the Chinese nuclear question. Mac Aurthur certainly wanted, and naturally expected, the full support of his Commander In Chief for American Soldiers engaged in a difficult war. Truman was obscessed with the possibility of Chinese intervention.... heck, with a coward like Truman in command, America should have just backed up and gone home from Europe and Asia, and burrowed into a cave, quaking with fear.

The choice of war was made by the Chinese. They should have paid the price with unrestricted conventional attacks by the US. But Truman would not support those underhis command... the average American soldier. He refused time and again to allow the military to do its job... bear in mind, up to 1951, no American President had refused a Supreme Commander the ability to fight, attack, and defend itself. This was a first in history (and set the stage for similar incompetant Presidential meddling a decade later).

Everyone, but EVERYONE, knew the Chinese could, by force of sheer number, overwhelm the Korean penninsula if they so chose. When the Chinese saw that Truman was a coward, quaking in his indecisive boots, they took the opportunity and attacked. They knew Truman better than Mac Arthur in the nuclear question... with no permission to counterattack the source of the evil Red Chinese army, and no permission for even tactical use of nukes on military units, Mac Arthur was pretty darned pissed that HIS men were being slaughtered by the evil Red Chinese.

Did Mac Arthur want to kill civilians? No. Would civilians get killed? Most definately. Whose fault would that be? Directly, the Chinese for attacking -- sneak attacking -- America. Indirectly, Truman's... for sending the signal to the evil Red Chinese to attack and begin slaughtering American and South Korean people.

Conventional bombing was what Mac Arthur wanted... he wanted to lay waste to all the sources of resupply, communication, troops, etc. In short, he was fighting a war, and Truman was playing a sick and disgusting game. Mac Arthur was trying to end a war and save lives, and Truman was (as usual) betraying America and it's fighting men in the field.

It is absurd to think that a President would allow tens of thousands of Americans to get killed, and not even unleash the US Military on the source of the killers. Even if the Atomic Bomb decision rested with the President, Truman had no business meddling in the actual conduct of the war... keep in mind that even Lincoln was not telling his generals what hills to attack, what bridges to take, etc. In all of American history to that point, no American general had been denied the use of it's military in the field to win a war. For students of military history, Truman's actions were and are shocking and unprecedented, and I'm sure Mac Arthur was quite incensed... and he had a right to be. As an American, I'm still apalled that our President comitted nothing less treason and cowardice in the face of the enemy, in wartime. Tens of thousands dead. And the war never won...

:(
http://www.civfanatics.com/uploads/america1s.jpg

Originally posted by starlifter

BTW, three presidents since Truman also bear the stain of dishonor and betrayal.... Kennedy (to a limited extent), Johnson (from my own home state :( ), and our only draft-dodger President, Clinton.


I smell a Republican :p

you dont write short posts do u starlifter?

i dont disagree with the use of the a bomb, but it could have been used on remote military installations, but that wouldnt intimidate the people of japan as easily.

there is a saying in sweden:

he who joins the game must suffer the consequenses of the game
i think it fits in nicely here.

something also tells me u dont like chinese people? (or their goverment)

Heh, err... interesting posts Starlifter.

1. The Japanese were not willing to be occupied. The military had an effective veto over surrender, and they wanted to keep on fighting. It took the two bombs to quiet the military and actually have the Emperor personally intervene into ending the conflict. Even after the two bombs, there were a few attempts at a coup to keep on fighting.
As for MacArthur, he severely underestimated the Japanese defenses for his invasion. He was even ignoring some of his own intelligence. Also, Truman received support from advisors and special committees to use the bomb.

2. Nuking China would have widened the war into WWIII, something Truman did not want, as this would kill far more people than the actions in Korea. Even just bombing inside China would have widened the war (and not would not have stopped them).

3. I shall ignore the assertion that Kennedy's overseeing the Cuban Missile Crisis instead of Curtis LeMay was a bad idea.
Agree on the point with Johnson, shall remind all that Bush Jr. dodged service in Vietnam as well (as well as my father, by staying in college and not graduating early).

you dont write short posts do u starlifter?

i dont disagree with the use of the a bomb, but it could have been used on remote military installations, but that wouldnt intimidate the people of japan as easily.
My post missed its mark, then.... I used to firmly believe in the US use of nukes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I have spent lots of time in Japan in the 1990's. But after reading the actual records (copies of them), I was shocked to learn the full nature of Truman's deceptions and coverups. It was Truman himself that "invented" the "1,000,000" casualty for Operation Olympic.... AFTER the war... in an attempt to justify his actions which he began to realize were indefensible in terms of the Soviets, Japanese, and in particular, the use of Atomic weapons. Most sources put the estimate of US casualties in the invasion of the japenese homeland at around 78,000. One source went as high as 250,000. Marshall believed around 100,000. After the nuking, Truman began to realize that others would judge him harshly, and began to systematicall alter the records, and hide key documents. Most of these documents have now been recovered. They reveal many things, including the fact the Air Force did not want to nuke H & N... they were civilian targets of no direct military consequence.

Despite decades of propaganda, the facts are that Truman unnecessarily nuked the Japs.... the only roadblock to a japanese surrender was Truman himself. And the surrender he finally accepted was the same surrender he had dissed in April. So other than killing lots more Americans (not to mention allies and Japanese), and double-nuking a country, not much was accomplished by the 5 month delay.

That Truman willfully and methodically covered up and distorted (thru press leaks) his own culpability only makes things worse. And it played a direct role in how he handled the Korean War.

You should research the decisions leading to the use of the Bomb... the reality of recorded and written history is very different than what many latter-day Truman apologists would have the public believe. ;) And Truman's decisions and actions are a shamful, but relatively unknown, part of American history.

Of course, the rest of Truman's record is not much better... a Divided and occupied Europe... millions killed and executed after the war (mostly by Truman's ally, the evil USSR), a world split, A war fought with no intention of victory, cowardice in the face of a wartime enemy.... rarely has such a despicable Commander in Chief ever occupied the Presidency.... until Bill Clinton, who must still take 2nd place to Truman for sheer numbers of US servicemen needlessly killed.

there is a saying in sweden:

he who joins the game must suffer the consequenses of the game
i think it fits in nicely here.
I spend a lot of time with family and relatives in Sweden, but haven't heard that one. I'm not Swedish, and can't speak much Swedish, though.

something also tells me u dont like chinese people? (or their goverment)
I am aware that in this hyper-sensitive age of extreme political correctness some people might interpret my absolute abhorrance of the evil Red Chinese as somehow being applied to the Chinese. But you will note that long phrase, "evil Red Chinese" when referring to the monsters that enslave and kill the Chinese people. In fact, I have much respect for the Chinese civilization and Chinese people... it the the evil Red Chinese that should be rooted out and exterminated. The Evil Red Chinese even kill and oppress their own people, the Chinese people. The evil Red Chinese are even now developing nuclear platforms that can deliver thermonuclear devices tot he United States mainland. A few years ago , they obtained the capability to strike Hawaii and parts of Alaska, when President Clinton and VP Gore broke US law and betrayed the nation by giving the evil Red Chinese the guidance technology and certain other technology to improve the delivery paltrofms for weapons of mass destruction. Judas' price for betrayal was 30 pieces of silver. Clinton and Gore's price was a few bucks and evil Red Chinese support for the '96 re-election campaign.

http://www.civfanatics.com/uploads/america1s.jpg

2. Nuking China would have widened the war into WWIII, something Truman did not want, as this would kill far more people than the actions in Korea. Even just bombing inside China would have widened the war (and not would not have stopped them). Sheer speculation. But the decision was not ours... it was that of the evil Red Chinese. They chose to attack and kill US people... not the other way around. Please state the number of US lives you are willing to allow the evil Red Chinese to snuff out before you are willing to stand up for what is right and defend yourself.

For me, I am willing to destroy an entire enemy army that sneak-attacks even one of my Soldiers. If America neede to gear up and stomp out the evil Red Chinese inthe 1950s, then we should have obliged them. The aggressors were the evil Red Chinese, not the defenders of the free world, American.

We fought the Korean War with our hands tied behind our back, and I'm not just referring to nukes.... we should have laid waste to the evil Red Chinese forces, and their havens and harbors of refuge and support. America has no desire to "take over" China, any more than it took over Japan (the mother of all Sneak Attacking nations). But I damn sure won't tolerate the evil Red Horde killing American soldiers. Period. OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS! :lol:


3. I shall ignore the assertion that Kennedy's overseeing the Cuban Missile Crisis instead of Curtis LeMay was a bad idea. At least Kennedy betrayed the Cubans at the Bay of Pigs. He (metaphorically) bent over, dropped his pants, and asked the Soviets to rape him. When the Soviets complied by putting missiles in Cuba (they already had nukes on Subs off our shores, remember)... American reaction forced Kennedy to finally act. The result of wiggling out of the mess he created was OK in the end, but America should never have been in that position. Soviet leaders interviewed in the last 15 years have now confirmed that their perception of Kennedy was as a weak, pathetic leader, and they underestimated the corner he was backed into as a result of the missiles. This is a classic lesson in how weak, morally bankrupt leadership and betrayal of your friends can almost cause the destruction of much of the world. Had someone of even lower intelligence and ability than the already marginal Kennedy been in charge, like Truman, the results would likely have been catastrophic for the nation.

So thank you Kennedy for allowing a Communist government to exist in the western hemisphere. James Monroe must be turning over in his grave.

1. The Japanese were not willing to be occupied. The military had an effective veto over surrender, and they wanted to keep on fighting. It took the two bombs to quiet the military and actually have the Emperor personally intervene into ending the conflict. Even after the two bombs, there were a few attempts at a coup to keep on fighting.
As for MacArthur, he severely underestimated the Japanese defenses for his invasion. He was even ignoring some of his own intelligence. Also, Truman received support from advisors and special committees to use the bomb. You are not in possession of all the facts, in this particular case. A review of the historical documents will shed more light on a subject of much propaganda that eminated from no less than the American President (Truman).

The US diplomacy in the last months of the war is ratehr obsure today, which is fine. Yes, there were elements in Japan that wanted to fight on... but the high-level Japanese discussions about ending the war began in late summer of 1944, as we now know. And Truman was pretty insecure as the new President (he knew he was not very inteligent), and got himself into a fix concerning the "Uncondtional Surrender" BS.... the Japanese were willing to fight on if their emperor would not be spared. In the end, we did just that.... we agreed to spare their emperor in exchange for surrender... e.g., "Unconditional Surrender" became "Conditional Surrender" after all.

Mac Arthur did not understimate the Japanese... his staff was still planning the invasion when the Bombs were dropped. Truman did get support from a few sources for the Bomb... but the majority recommended the bomb not be employed, esp. in the way we did. Most leaders were shocked at what Truman did, and truman spent a lot of the rest of his life trying to shift the facts and justify the decision while later claiming he would not do it again.
http://www.civfanatics.com/uploads/america1s.jpg

Starlifter, while I have the greatest respect for your posts (esp about Civ), have you ever wondered why the Chinese entered the Korean War? It's cos a hostile army was marching up right up to its borders. Hostile cos the Americans were arming its Nationalist enemies just a couple of years before during the last phase of the Chinese civil war (1946-49).
In spite of all the diplomatic feelers the Chinese put out thru India (one of the few countries to recognise the PRC - the Americans refused to have anything to do with the "evil Red Chinese"), the army came on and on. Having no choice, they would have to respond. In force.
An equivalent would be a Soviet army marching up the Baja penisular in Mexico, closing in on California. You would have responded in force too.
And the Commies had a lot of support from the Chinese people (even the middle class) in the early days. Cos when the Nationalists returned to their own territories in the Yangzi valley and elsewhere, and although the resident Chinese greeted them enthusiastically as liberators, the Guomindang began to terrorize them cos they 'collaborated' with the Japs during the war. Executions, 'nationalization' of properties, prison etc.
So when the Commies beat the Nationalists out of China, the Chinese middle classes welcomed them. That support evaporated during the stupid Mao projects (the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution).
Bet you didn't know that? ;)

"For me, I am willing to destroy an entire enemy army that sneak-attacks even one of my Soldiers. If America neede to gear up and stomp out the evil Red Chinese inthe 1950s, then we should have obliged them. The aggressors were the evil Red Chinese, not the defenders of the free world, American. "

The Commies couldn't declare war anyway - they weren't the recognized legitimate govt of China. Esp not by the Americans. And they didn't want to really go to war with America, so they were only sending 'voluteers' to fight. Yes I know, it's all sickening legalese but the Chinese and Americans kept up the fiction so that Korean War would not escalate into WW3. The Soviets were already sending in their MiGs to help I think.

I think General MacArthur underestimated the Chinese 'peasant' troops. He was still remembering them as the useless, poorly equipped, untrained irregular forces who couldn't deal with the Japs in WW2 in home territory (just 5-6 years before). However the Chinese Red Army had become much more experienced and better-armed after the Japs surrendered in China and thru the course of the civil war. The last few battles of the civil war were large affairs fought with conventional means i.e. no guerilla warfare, involving millions of troops on both sides.

The Commies chose to use guerilla warfare and irregular tactics in Korea cos they didn't want an official war with America. Plus they weren't that good enough to send, support and supply huge conventional forces in foreign countries anyway.

Starlifter, while I have the greatest respect for your posts (esp about Civ), have you ever wondered why the Chinese entered the Korean War? It's cos a hostile army was marching up right up to its borders.
Completely irrelevant. Using that logic, Russia and Chna should have been utterly nuked and destroyed in 1945 for exceeding their borders and approaching others.

It is the very definition of evil for the evil Red Chinese to sneak attack and kill with no direct aggression. The US was not invading China. In fact, even after China sneak attacked, the US did not invade china, or eve allow air operations against China. In fact, the yellow staned bastard Truman would not even allow US Fighters to pursue attacking MiGs into China. The US had every right to not only pursue, but to lay waste to the airbases WITHIN China. But it did not.

So it is the height of Red propaganda to suggest that the evil Red Chinese had "No Choice" but to sneak attack and kill Americans. America was not attacking China... the evil Red Chinese were and are the devils in the conflict. Eliminate the evil Red Chinese (and their lap dogs in North Korea), and there is no more conflict, only peace.


Hostile cos the Americans were arming its Nationalist enemies just a couple of years before during the last phase of the Chinese civil war (1946-49).
Totally irrelevant to the evil Red Chinese sneak attack. The evil Red Chinese had absolutely no business... none... killing Americans in North Korea. The United States had and still has the moral and ethical right to squash the evil Red Chinese menace.



In spite of all the diplomatic feelers the Chinese put out thru India (one of the few countries to recognise the PRC - the Americans refused to have anything to do with the "evil Red Chinese"), the army came on and on. Having no choice, they would have to respond.
Such a load of crap.... the evil Red Chinese-backed North Koreans attempted to exterminate all Americans and South Koreans with a violent sneak attack to begin the Korean War. The evil Red Chinese wanted S. Korea dead and gone.... the US Stood Up for S. Korea against the evil Red Menace and was on the verge of eradicating the evil "North Korean" dictatorship and reunifying Korea to a peaceful nation, when the evil Red Chinese attacked the forces of good. Make no mistake at all... the Korean War was and STILL IS a was of freedom and good (America nd teh Free Wrold) against the forces of evil and darkness (the evil Red Chinese and their lapdogs). Pure and simple.

"Having no choice" as you say is unbelievably apologetic for such a monsterous act as what the evil Red Chinese perpetrated. You don't back down from evil... you root it out and destroy it, especially when the evil attacks you. Less than 10 years before, Americans were fighting and dying for and in China.... before the Evil Reds took over. The evil Red Chinese were and still are vicious, murdering thugs deserving of a bayonnette in their throats. Just to be clear... this comment is not about the vast majority of Chinese, but it is about the minority of Evil Red Chinese in China, who happen to control China in an icy grip to this day.

In force.
An equivalent would be a Soviet army marching up the Baja penisular in Mexico, closing in on California. You would have responded in force too.
An absurd example. But for your information, a communist government dedicated to the destruction of Democracy (and ALL other forms of govenment, as all Communism is) was illegally estabilshed in Cuba, and the US did not respond with force of arms, even though the US has the international law on its side to do so (the evil Red Chinese did not have the legal right to sneak attack the US and kill Americans in Korea).

So no, the US did NOT respond as the evil Red Chinese did, even when it had the right to and Red China did not!

Peace in Korea = All Reds Dead
http://www.civfanatics.com/uploads/america1s.jpg

I think General MacArthur underestimated the Chinese 'peasant' troops. He was still remembering them as the useless, poorly equipped, untrained irregular forces who couldn't deal with the Japs in WW2 in home territory (just 5-6 years before). LOL, in all honesty, I could write volumes in this area, and would never get out of this thread... why? Because I've spent hundreds of hours and many years studying events of this era, and the US invlovement in particular.

Any short summation does the actual history an injustice, but that's all I have time for right now. A mistake many people today make when studying history is nor understanding the context of a given time. In this case, Mac Arthur was the Supreme Commander and fully expected to be able to use all the allied military force available to accomplish the military objective. Against the likely Chinese Irregulars, he had every expectation to destroy them, if they managed attack. But at critical military junctures, the means to slow or stop the evil Red Chinese was denied to the commander in the field by the Commander in Chief, AKA Coward In Chief. This was the first time in US Military history that a commander engaged in battle was systematically denied the ability to defeat the enemy by his own President. Vietnam and Somalia had not occurred yet.

For example, it is accepted practice to pursue and destroy an aggressor. The JCS and Truman begrudingly gave Mac Arthur permission to do that... but when Mac Arthur had trapped the evil aggressors near the Yalu river, Truman denied him the accepted military option of destroying the supply/retreat bridges. Further, Truman created safe enclaves (or "havens" ) for the remorseless enemy. And Truman also forbid US fighers from defending themselves, even when in hot pursuit, of the soviet manned, chinese marked MiGs as the attakced and killed Americans and the fled north to their "safe haven". A reasonable military response would frankly have been nuclear obliteration of any and all the evil Red Chinese military bases. Conventional obliteration would be less effective and cost more American blood to do the job, but that was disallowed, too.

I could go on, but when a commander in the field has to fight a monsterously evil enemy in the field, be mocked and insulted by his own commander in Washington, and denied the ability to even defend the lives of his army (much less proceed to final victory)....

So no, Mac Arthur did not underestimate the Chinese soldier... but he was betrayed and repeatedly stabbed in the back by Truman. However, the ones that paid the price for Truman's vain and petty actions was not mac Arthur, but the Americans, Allies, and even evil Red Chinese who lost their lives and were wounded.
http://www.civfanatics.com/uploads/america1s.jpg

Heh, this is turning into a fun thread. :D

1. Quickly on the Kennedy thing. When Castro took power (against an oppressive dictator we were supporting), Eisenhower was President. Eisenhower's CIA were the one's who thought up that incredibly bad idea that was Bay of Pigs. When Kennedy took power, he did not know very much about the Bay of Pigs. He allowed it because the CIA said it was going to work, and that Eisenhower was going to allow it.
Of course, it was a bad idea, even if the US had given air support. If we wanted Castro out, then it would have required use of our own forces. But such a blatant invasion of Cuba would have given loads of propoganda ammunition to the Soviet Union of the "imperialist" US, putting down a popular revolution (and it was a somewhat popular revolution) of the Cuban people. Not a good thing when trying to convince the world to support you and not the Soviets.

2. With the casaulty figures, the US really did not know what the casaulties were going to be. Some operations against the Japanese had relatively few US casaulties (Philipines). However, the if the US had encountered the fanatic defenders of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, there would have been a lot of US deaths (maybe not a million, but a large number. I wrote a paper on this in the 11th grade)
Also, the US horribly underestimated Japanese forces in the invasion area. We estimated around 625,000 men, when in reality they had around 900,000. They had large numbers of suicide boats and midget submarines, and over 1,000 kamikazes.
So if we had invaded, there would have been a lot of casaulties, far more than if we used the bombs. (Which also killed Japanese, and not our own soldiers.)

Now the question is whether the Japanese government was going to surrender or not. A large part of the Japanese government did not want to surrender, but the army and navy did not, and they held effective veto power over any surrender. (Also, even if the mainland government had surrendered, their was no guarantee that army units in Japanese occupied lands would have obeyed.) It took the emperor, the use of two A-bombs, and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (which shocked the Japanese, and was every bit as useful and needed as the use of the bombs.)
Once again, even with all this, some elements of the army still tried a coup.

Also, Truman was using unconditional surrender because that was what Churchill and Roosevelt declared after their Algiers conference. The possible Japanese surrender terms were far more than just keeping the emperor. They wanted a Versailles, with no ocupation.

3. I'll admit, I am not an expert on the Korean war. However, I don't think expanding the war into China (which would have gotten the Soviets even more involved) would have been a good idea. Truman had a choice of high probability of war with China and Soviet Union (and renewed warfare in Europe), or the limited fighting in Korea.

PS. Truman did not surrender Europe, if anyone did that, it was Roosevelt at Yalta. The only real way to stop this domination would have been to go war with the Soviet Union in order to expel the Red Army. Keep in mind the most destructive 6 year (4 for US) conflict had just been concluded.

Truman helped form NATO and the containment policy, (which worked, such as helping Greece defeat communist rebels.)


Thus sayeth the dirty commie pinko. :p

Joe Stalin betrayed his 'evil Red' allies right before the Chinese attack into N. Korea. He promised Mao fighter support from the USSR and backed down at the last minute. Supposedly Mao had a nervous breakdown.

Obviously some Russians did fly in the Korean War, but not full scale like origionaly planned.

Another (twisted) point of view, Starlifter, is that the communist North Korea asked the 'evil Red Chinese' commies for aid in repelling western aggression (never mind they started the war), like the South Koreans did of the US. That was the 'evil Red' version of things at the time.

I agree, in hindsite, that the US should have bombed 'evil Red' troop staging areas in China as well as airbases. They got off too easy. Truman really was a weenie.

About the more recent scandal involving Clinton, Starlifter, where is your source about China getting missle guidence tech? I don't disbelieve you, but I thought they stole that along with our MIRV secrets in the spy scandal. I would like to see that very much.

I was, and still am, inclined to think we should have done more to China re: the spying at Los Alamos. Once again, they got off too easy.

Starlifter, maybe you're right, maybe you aren't; I don't know anymore. :confused: You do sound very convincing. Actually I am not very clear on the US side in the Korean War, so I apolgise for any informational error on my part.

But you can blame all the evil Red Chinese mess on the evil Japanese imperialist militarists. Had they not invaded China, the Nationalists would not have lost their best assets (trained administrators, best military units, key tax revenues etc) and would have eventually consolidated their hold over all of China. Imagine a Taiwan today the size of China. :)

Starlifter, maybe you're right, maybe you aren't; I don't know anymore. You do sound very convincing. Actually I am not very clear on the US side in the Korean War, so I apolgise for any informational error on my part.
No need to apologize... everyone has a right to an opinion, and even those that may not agree with mine. It is ironic that for years I took the major military books at face value concerning the "1,000,000" casualties as justification for attacking the Japs with the Bomb. I've spent many a Hiroshma and Nagasaki anniversary in Japan, and was more than willing to explain how they should be grateful for our nuking them to their senses.

However, the real memos, records, meeting minutes, personal letters of Truman, etc. show the real story which I've only begun to learn in the last 3 or so years. Mac Arthur understood teh Japanese and the "eastern mind" more than any other major Allied commander, and it is fortunate for the Japanese that Mac Arthur was their conqueror.

But the nuking of Japan was unnecessary, and quite prideful. Most people, especially western people, simply have no understanding of Japan of 1945, much less the military disposition or the weight of the will of the Emperor. The war was over and would have ended, had Truman had a grasp of things. But its not his fault and I don't condemn him for being an unintelligent, short-sighted, vain individual. However, even a Forrest Gump is expected to keep faith and loyalty with the American fighting man.

Joe Stalin betrayed his 'evil Red' allies right before the Chinese attack into N. Korea. He promised Mao fighter support from the USSR and backed down at the last minute. Supposedly Mao had a nervous breakdown. Stalin actaully stabbed the evil Red Chinese in the back in several other ways, too.

the communist North Korea asked the 'evil Red Chinese' commies for aid in repelling western aggression (never mind they started the war), like the South Koreans did of the US. That was the 'evil Red' version of things at the time. True... but the fact remains that if a nation attacks and kills Americans, esp. in an undeclared sneak attack like the Evil Red Chinese did, the C-in-C should pull all the stops and uleash the full and entire weight of the US Military upon such evil aggression and murder. Had Chairman Mao been C-in-C, most of his actions would scarcely have been distihguishable from those of Truman's. It was the Chinese, not the US, that decided to pick a war. The US had no intention of fighting in the Far East, and indeed did not even have the proper forces in place for a defense. A "defense" based on airpower and the Bomb does no good if you will not use it to defend the lives of your nation's soldiers.





About the more recent scandal involving Clinton, Starlifter, where is your source about China getting missle guidence tech? I don't disbelieve you, but I thought they stole that along with our MIRV secrets in the spy scandal. I would like to see that very much. It was actaully reported in multiple mainstream sources, including Leherer, Frontline, and another PBS documentary, plus various news sources (including Time and/or Newsweek).

Lest I mislead you, Clinton and Gore did not actually send US Military missiles to China... nor did they release ICBM plans. What they did was to allow the export of "peaceful" missile technology, particularly in terms of computers, software, guidance, etc. Clinton/Gore's story now is that it was just for satellites. The US Justice Department was still investigating Gore several months ago, last I heard. I have seen nothing in the news lately, however.

The money trail into the Clinton/Gore '96 campaign led to the red Army sources reported in the media. I'm noat sure where the official investigation is about that right now.

1. Quickly on the Kennedy thing. Kennedy, like yellow stain Truman and the draft dodger Clinton, had little to no respect for the US Monroe Doctrine. The Cuban Commie pigs should have been snuffed out from the getgo. Kennedy should have simply called off the entire operation if he did not like it. Instead, he let the Cubans go in believing he would keep the promise of American help. Kennedy pissed in his pants and let the Cubans die, betrayed. Naturally, the Soviets saw JFK as the disgusting spineless traitor that he was.... and attempted to exploit the situation. Make no mistake.... Kennedy caused the Cuban Missile Crisis... that should never have occurred. Kennedy was fortunate to visit Dallas in November of 1963, but he had holes in his head long before then. He was fortuante in the sense that history in the short term treated him kindly because of his assassination.

2. With the casaulty figures, the US really did not know what the casaulties were going to be. LOL, read the documents of the era. Some of your remarks are similar to what I used to think, based on the massaged view of history generally taught. There were lots of coverups at the end of the war. Recent declassifications and discovered documents, particularly the documents missing from some of Truman's records for decades, show the truth. It is disgusting at times.

I don't think expanding the war into China (which would have gotten the Soviets even more involved) would have been a good idea. Truman had a choice of high probability of war with China and Soviet Union (and renewed warfare in Europe), or the limited fighting in Korea. You don't have a clue about war, or you'd realize how silly your statement is. Of course an expanded war is bad. ANY war is bad. That is the whole POINT of war.... it is horrific, terrible, and something to be avoided. But when it comes, it is time to knuckle down and get the job done with determination and overwhelming force. It is not time to urinate on oneself and metaphorically suck the d*ck of the jerk who is pissing on you. And Truman was a d*ck sucker extraordinare. When the first American soldier was attacked by the evil Red Chinese, the US should have declared war on the evil Red Chinese and kicked their asses back into Mongolia or Kamchatka if necessary. Red Hordes = Red Carbon.

America sold out with the Truman solution, and to this day, we pay the price around the world. Ironically, the average Chinese pays the price too...

So who the hell cares what the Soviet menace thinks? If Truman listened to Patton in 1945, the Red Menace would have been the Red Grimace. We developed the Bomb for use in Europe... the place it should have been deployed was in far eastern Europe.... the Soviets should have been put back in their cage, and if they didn't like it, their cage should have been incinerated. One must not tolerate evil and appease monsters like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Such people and governments must be stomped and wiped out with extreme prejudice when you have the upper hand. And in 1945 we had the upper hand.

Keep in mind the most destructive 6 year (4 for US) conflict had just been concluded. No, you are wrong... the war never ended, thanks to the betrayal of the Soviet "allies". America just quit fighting, thanks to a weak, treacherous President Truman. Truman was obscessed with Stalin... and Stalin, as we now know, accuratly assessed Truman as weak minded and weak-willed individual ready to betray his own nation given the chance.

Truman helped form NATO and the containment policy, You don't "contain" evil. You stomp it out. Hunt it down and kill it. What a stupid idea to allow evil to survive, when the world fought a war to rid itself of dictatorships, murderers, and evil empires. A coward like Truman comes along and ensures the survival, nay the flourishing, of empires even more monsterous than the 3rd Reich and Rising Sun.

Some people will not fight even to save their family and countrymen. Fine. But get out of the way, and don't betray the nation. Others will eventually pay the price, one way or the other.

http://www.civfanatics.com/uploads/america1s.jpg

This is indeed an interesting discussion. There is much I'd like to reply to in Starlifter's post's but it is difficult to know where to start!:crazyeyes

So I will begin with a general reply. One theme seems to be that communism = evil. (Please correct me if this is not what you are saying Starlifter.) I'm guessing that this is because the Communist Manifesto ends:

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be atained only by forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist reolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. The have a world to win.
WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES UNITE!"

So, if you are communist you want to forcibly conquer the world and therefore you are evil.

I noticed another line in the manifesto:

"... the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

I think this is what really scares us Capitalits and makes us think, "You want to take our stuff and so you are evil."

Growing up I never did beleive the Russian people wanted to conquer us. I do not now think that the Chinese people want to conquer us. In both these sentences I am refering to the 'regular' people - not what Starlifter would call the 'evil Red' Chinese or Russians. I've also always had faith that the 'regulars' sufficiently outnumber the 'evils' so that common sense and peace will prevail.

This may be a utopian illusion of mine but it does appear that we (the U.S. and many other countries) are smartening up. We did see the danger posed by Sadam back in the 1990s and we responded. If something similar would have occured in the 1930s perhaps even the Korean war might have been avoided...

These 'what ifs' may seem pointless and futile but they can start one thinking about what changes are needed in this world. I think Starlifter and I both see the same dog-eat-dog world out there but our perspectives seem quite different. Starlifter seems to be very nationalistic in his views while I am more global. That is ironic because 9except for Canada) I've not been outside the U.S. while he has alot of time outside the U.S.

Maybe later I will reply to some of the specifics...

Oh boy oh boy oh boy. :crazyeyes

I'm not the master of quotes, so I'll summarize your points.

1. I agree, he partially deserves blame for the Bay of Pigs. But Eisenhower and the CIA were the one's who invented that half-baked scheme.
As for the actual Crisis, this was one of a series of steps when Kruschev was trying to test Kennedy. (because he thought he was weak.) He tried some tricks in Berlin, but the US encountered. (Go check out Checkpoint Charlie).
I think Kennedy did a good job once the crisis started. He kept control over our responses, and did not cave into MeLay who wanted to bomb and invade. That would have caused WWIII. The Soviets would have to defend the state they were backing. Also, control of tactical nuclear weapons were under the command of local Cuban troops.
Was Kennedy a wonderful President. No. But I don't consider a slimeless weakling. I think Harding, Coolidge, and Carter were far more horrible Presidents.

2. I did read the documents of the era. Truman had a meeting with Marshall and others. And yes, they did not come up with
1 million casaulties, but the figures did vary widely, as the US had no accurate way to estimate the casaulties. However, looking at Japanese army deployments, the US severely underestimated Japanese strength in Kyushu. (As I eluded to in earlier post). Had an invasion occured, there is a little doubt the casaulty figure's would have been far greater than the US estimates. Also, these casaulties would have involved US deaths, not just Japanese.

The main point of contention in this argument is whether Japan was willing to unconditionally surrender or not. Intercepted japanese diplomatic messages and internal government and army notes show a fight to a finish. While Japan was willing for some form of peace, they wanted a Versailles, not an occupation. It was far more than just the Emperor's place.

3. The US should have continued WWII in order to elimate the evil commie threat. ;)
This is a question of mission. I think it would have been to costly for the US to even attempt to destroy the Soviet Union.
Now, I'm not a big fan of the Soviet Union, but I see nothing short of nuclear war that would have given us victory in 1945. They had superior tanks (in massive amounts, unlike the Germans) and a well developed Industry that would have been difficult to reach with airstrikes. While the Red Air Force was good, we would most likely have achieved Air Superiority, but that won't win the war for you. And I don't think just nuking the Soviet Union would have created a better world. Think of precedent, and the damage to Eastern Europe and Half of Asia. Also, we didn't have enough nukes yet.
Also, the US populace would not have been very supportive of this war, not to mention the fact the power to declare war lies with CONGRESS, not the President.

As for Korea, the situation for WWIII would have been even more unfavorible. By then, the USSR had nukes. (and maybe the H-bomb, but I am not sure on that).
I don't think we sucked the Chinese genitalia. We killed a lot more of them then they did of us, (including a 12:1 airplane ratio) and we secured South Korea.
But in uniting Korea, the US had a choice.
1. WWIII to unite Korea (and bombing inside of China, especially nukes as MacArthur wanted would have done this).
2. Settle for South Korea, containment, and deterrence. (Which eventually worked, as containing the Soviet Union eventually led to their downfall, without requiring a WWIII.)

Now this was far more important than actually studying for my government mid-term tommorrow.
:goodjob:

"We killed a lot more of them then they did of us, (including a 12:1 airplane ratio) and we secured South Korea."

The Chinese lost 200-300k men and had a lot more wounded; mostly to the cold cos the troops were not equipped for winter. The Chinese forces were still really poorly-equipped peasant armies but indoctrinated to fight fanatically by the Commies. For them, it's a matter of fighting for and protecting China rather than fighting for Communism.
BTW, the Chinese Communist armies also composed of large nos of ex-Nationalist troops. One reason why the Commies won the Chinese civil war was cos large nos of Nationalist troops defected. The Commies were campaigning on a platform of non-corruption and nationalism.

Starlifter said:
The American military should have been allowed to dispose of the Red Threat in Korea after the dastardly sneak attack by the evil Red Chinese. Truman should have been removed from office, tried for cowardice in the face of the enemy, and handed the appropriate punishment for treason and betrayal of the nation in wartime.

In reply:
I assume disposing of the Red Threat in Korea = one Korea with a capitalistic economy and democratic society = winning the Korean War by defeating the North Koreans and keeping the Chinese and Soviets out of Korea. I think it is fair to say that the Chinese would not have stood by and let that happen. We might not be able to say whether WWIII would have broken out but Korea was the Cold War beginning to heat up. A touchy situation given the fact that the Soviets had nuclear bomb capability in the summer of 1949.

As for the sneak attack, I don't know enough about the history. This is what I have learned since reading these posts. (Someone please correct me if I am misinformed.) The US and Soviet Union decided on the 38th parrallel as a demarcation line for the occupation of Korea right after WWII. The political instability in Korea (who rules Korea now that the Japanese are gone?) made Korea a prime 'battlefield' of the US-Soviet Cold War. The Soviets backed a communist trying to unite korea while the Americans backed a non-communist. Since the Koreans now had Soviet or US weapons they started fighting. The US had occupation forces in South Korea and so became involved. (The choice seems to have been get involved or leave.) Now I need help and more studying. From this point it seems the Soviets disappear from the picture and the Chinese step in. Can someone tell me the story of the sneak attack?

As for Truman being removed from office and punished for treason during wartime... I see a couple problems with this. First, was war ever declared? That's just a technicality for sure but someone has recently remined us in these posts that it is Congress not the President that has the power to declare war. (Though in reality the President has the power to get us into wars which they've realized since at least Jefferson's time.) More importantly, what was the actual treason? Truman carrying out his policy of containment rather than MacArthur's policy of attacking China? MacArthur had the right to his own opinion like any other American but he was not in charge! Truman was his commander. Congress could have declared war despite Truman's policy. If they had done so and Truman refused to conduct the war accordingly then there might have been a case for treason since Congress can be considered Truman's boss when it comes to declaring war. Congress did not declare war (becasue they didn't want it?). There did not seem to be a surge of public opinion in the US for Congress to do so either so I certainly do not see even a remote case for treason against Truman.

"Now I need help and more studying. From this point it seems the Soviets disappear from the picture and the Chinese step in. Can someone tell me the story of the sneak attack?"

From what I know (what I think I know), after WW2, the Soviets became caretakers of North Korea and the US South Korea. Cos the Soviets had declared war on Japan late in the Pacific War and had blitz the Japs out of Inner Mongolia and Manchuria so they wanted a piece of the action. Original plan was to hand over a united Korea to a united Korean govt.
Then the Cold War started hottening up. The Soviets gave N Korea to Kim, who had led the Korean anti-Jap partisans during WW2 and was affliated with the Red Chinese. Also left behind heavy eq i.e. tanks, artillery etc. On the other hand, the US gave S Korea to some Korean politician (forgotten name) who turned dictatorial and autocratic. But they only left behind light arms so the S Koreans only had some infantry divs in their army.
Sensing an opportunity, Kim invaded the south. No idea if the Chinese or Soviets were awared or pre-warned. He was successful and pushed the S Koreans into the Pusan perimeter. The Americans were alarmed and immediately rushed troops fr Japan and began organising an intl coalition sanctioned by the UN.
Now cos the Soviets were boycotting the UN Sec Council (cos the UN was refusing to recognize the PRC due to American influence), the Americans managed to get their motion passed and a UN force was sent to Korea to beat back the N Koreans (mostly US forces). The US-led force beat the N Koreans and pushed all the way to the Yalu river which was the Chinese border. And the Red Chinese became alarmed cos America had supported (and armed) their Nationalist enemies who had just been driven to Taiwan 2-3 years earlier. Now a US force was poised on its border.
So the Chinese sent out diplomatic feelers to US, asking its intention (US gonna attk into Manchuria?). But US side didn't respond cos no direct diplomatic links betw PRC and USA. Also the US govt and military didn't take the Red Chinese side into consideration and very certainly thought the Chinese won't and couldn't do anything (peasant army!).
So the Chinese secretly sent in hundreds of thousands of 'volunteers' to help the N Koreans drive the US forces back from the border. This was the 'sneak attk' Starlifter was talking about. They attked (together with what was left of the N Korean army) and drove the Americans back beyond the 38'. But the Americans fought back (after recovering fr the shock of China's entry into the war). I think the Red Chinese didn't declare war cos they kept maintaining the fiction that the Chinese troops in Korea were 'volunteers' and not officially-sanctioned.
Eventually the border settled back on the 38' and hence it had remained to this day. BTW, there wasn't a peace settlement so legally the Korean War is still going on. And I think the Soviets did send some MiGs to help the Chinese side but only a few cos Stalin was wary of the Red Chinese. The feelings were mutual cos the Soviets didn't really help the Red Chinese much prior to the founding of the PRC. In fact, the Soviets had a cosier relationship the Nationalist Chinese.

Thank you SKM. The account you give seems to make sense. It certainly explains things. The Chinese intervention makes sense. I would not say it was justified but I would not call it a sneak attack either. The big question is what can be learned from the experience? To me that is one of the main reasons for learning about history.

It seems to me that some diplomacy might have avoided all this. Not having direct diplomatic channels seems to have fostered mutual distrust between China and the US. We know there was already fear of Communism in the US and of course this added to the problems. It is sad that the Koreans were caught in the middle of all this. The casualty figures I saw from one source were Korea 3,000,000; China 900,000 and US 35,000. I assume the Korean figure includes many civilians. The figure for China is high but no doubt there were many more Chinese left to fight illustrating the size of the task involved in a US - China war. Keeping Vietnam in mind I do not see how anyone could think the US could roll into China and win. How could we have won against hundreds of millions of people fighting a guerilla war? We would have had to use nukes like crazy and what would the world be like now if that had been done?:eek:

So now we have another undeclared war against a country we have not recognized...

I find it sad that Presidents like Truman and Kennedy who refused to take us into a possible third world war are not recognized for the good that they did. Even President Carter has been ridiculed. I think one of his greatest acheivements was to get Egypt and Isreal talking to each other. It is too bad Carter was followed by Reagan and his talk of the evil empire.

"So now we have another undeclared war against a country we have not recognized... "

Actually the USA under Nixon recognized the PRC back in the 70s after the ties betw the Soviets and the Chinese had ruptured. This was to form an entente against the Soviet Union (enemy of my enemy is my friend thing).

Also China has not stationed troops in N Korea for sometime like a few decades, so it's not really involved in the short-term military situation in Korea. I think the Chinese still have some little influence with N Korea but nothing as substantial as the S Korean-USA alliance.

I believe America learnt the Korean War lesson well. During the Vietnam War, the US ground forces never really staged a massive invasion into N Vietnam I think. Cos it would seem like a repeat of the Korean War if US forces once again approached the Chinese broder. Also like in the present war on terrorism, America took great pains to negotiate a deal with the Taliban to hand over Osama before launching the attacks.

When I said now we have another undeclared war against against a country we haven't recognized I was thinking about Afganistan and the Taliban. I was under the impression that only Pakistan and Saudi Arabia officially recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afganistan.

SKM's point about no massive invasion of ground troops into North Vietnam because we learned a lesson from Korea makes sense. Maybe there is hope for us after all...

Originally posted by donsig
When I said now we have another undeclared war against against a country we haven't recognized I was thinking about Afganistan and the Taliban. I was under the impression that only Pakistan and Saudi Arabia officially recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afganistan.

SKM's point about no massive invasion of ground troops into North Vietnam because we learned a lesson from Korea makes sense. Maybe there is hope for us after all... Only 3 nations recognized the Taliban as the govt of Afghanistan prior to 911 - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and one of the Gulf states (UAE?). This no dropped to zero now.
I wonder where's starlifter. I am sure he'll have lots of lectures for us now about the "evil Red Chinese".

I wonder where's starlifter. I am sure he'll have lots of lectures for us now about the "evil Red Chinese".

The silence from Starlifter is deafening. I think he mentioned not long ago in one of the GOTM threads something about being the possibility of being 'deployed'. I really hope that hasn't happened with Civ III coming out in less than two weeks. :eek:

We should check and see if he's posted to any other threads lately...