Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Korean war

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
bigtoothbrush View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121
  Quote bigtoothbrush Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Korean war
    Posted: 10-May-2006 at 21:47

Flash movie about Korean war process.

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Hollywood-Studio/4559/koreawar195 0.html

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Hollywood-Studio/4559/koreawar195 1ver2.html

Basically like this,

1 North Korea invaded South Korea and crushed south side's armed forces. South side were forced to south direction.

2 Before North side almost control the whole Korea, UN toops(mainly were Americans) joint the war. They defeatd North Korean army and took back the whole South Korea.

3 China warned America that not to pass the 38th parallel, where is the border between North and South Korea. While America ignored the warning and started to invade North Korea. After destroyed North Korean armed forces, America almost controled the whole North Korea. And they almost pushed the battle to yalu river, where is the Chinese/Korean border.

4 China sent troops into North Korea and pushed American troops back to south direction. When China took back the whole North Korea, Chinese leadership thought that it's a good chance to drive American influence out of Korean peninsula.

5 Chinese troops passed the 38th parallel and invaded South Korea. After Chinese troops seized South Korean capital Seoul, they couldn't maintain the logistics line any more since they'd already gone too far.

6 American pushed Chinese troops back to 38th parallel again. Then both side could not move forward any more, warfare became impasse. After several negotiations, armistice treaty was made. Korean war over. 

Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1028
  Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2006 at 04:27
Not American troops. UN troops. There were many non Americans, (although they were the most).
7 American divisions participated, 1 Commonwealth, I don't know how many South Korean (with poor performance in the beginning of the war), and many smaller units from UN, which mostly were incorporated into american units. For example the Greek reinforced battallion was part of the 7th regiment of the 1st american cavalry division. The total amount of UN combatant land units is about 11 battalions (8+1 turkish brigade). So, in conclusion we can say that in Korea the allied force (excluding South Korea) was 7*9+1*9+11=83 battallions, of which 20 were not americans. That's a not ignorable 1/4 of the total troops. Not to mention other units (commonwealth (New Zealand's) artillery, Indian campaign hospital etc)
Back to Top
bigtoothbrush View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121
  Quote bigtoothbrush Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2006 at 05:07

all of the non American troops were just a joke. there wouldn't be any big change to the result of war even if they didn't come. but if without american troops, there was no need to fight this war, the only thing that so called UN troops could do is surrender. lol

the simple fact is, if americans didn't come, just north korea alone already could wiped all those pipsqueak countries' troops out, china even didn't have to bother sending troops. actually it was americans inchon landing campaign drove north koreans back. before this, the so called UN troops could do nothing in front of those koreans, no one could stop their aggression.

Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1028
  Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2006 at 05:24
Ahem? I miss your point.
Are you iplying that the UN armies were inferior than the US?
Or just that there weren't enough UN troop to hold the North Koreans?

If you are implying the first, then shake your head and wake up. In fact the American troops were the ones that needed extra training before they enetered Korea. Of course there were poor in performance units of the UN, but some were very good. I'm thinking of the very experienced Greek battalion, but I'll let it, and mention the Commonwealth troops, that were certainly much better than the American ones.
If you're implying the second, then you're probably right, although the UN could have sent even more troops.

In conclusion, of course the US were the main force of the allies, and they were the ones that were close enough (in Japan), that were able to hold the North Koreans early enough. But don't forget, that the US was also a UN army, and was in Korea because it was 'ordered' so by the UN. The american command held the UN support for very important. Don't underestimate this.
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1028
  Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2006 at 05:27
And by the way, in the Pushan (sp?) pocket, before the Inchon landing, it was mainly Americans trapped in, not UN. Greece's forces arrived just in winter 1950-1951, months after the landing. 
Back to Top
bigtoothbrush View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121
  Quote bigtoothbrush Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2006 at 06:19

man, american armed forces were the one which just fought big battles with both japs and germans in ww2 not long time before. actually they were one of the most experienced troops. how could you use the other countries' big john soldiers to compare with them. as for the commonwealth troops. lol befroe americanw joint the pacific war, they were the one escape away from japs the most fast.

dude, please accept the hard fact. it was americans the main force of UN troops, and both their training and equipments were the best in UN troops. just like the war happened in 1991 gulf, the other countries troops were inappreciable and mainly just did some supporting jobs. if americans didn't join the war, it's impossible the so called UN troops could keep fighting korean war. 

Back to Top
Dampier View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
  Quote Dampier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2006 at 06:32

Oh not again.....hollywood has a lot to answer for.

American troops were generally less experienced and trained than their Allied counterparts in WW2 AND Korea. Their equipment was the same, inferior in some cases, superior in others. Look at D-Day; 3 Allied beaches and 2 American. North Africa and much of the Far East fell to Allied troops not American. Europe featured just as many Allied troops as Americans. In Korea UN troops were vital, try reading about the Irriwaddy.

It is American fiction they were all that counted in both wars. They were vitally important but there were many more experienced, trained and equipped troops than them.

Back to Top
bigtoothbrush View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121
  Quote bigtoothbrush Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2006 at 08:14

lol buddy, we should be in objective way, right? though i don't like americans nor wanna praise for them. but i have to admit the fact that america is the country that gave the most influence to the result of both ww2 and korean war. they were always the most big deal that makes their rival headache.

as for whether their equipments and training are better than other UN trrops, you just need to look at their war industry level and how much money they put on military training, the answer is obvious.  

Back to Top
Dampier View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
  Quote Dampier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2006 at 09:01

Umm...Russia won WW2. Not the Allies......

Money isnt everything. And war industry...they made Shermans, lots of Shermans, is it a good tank, no! This is a vehicle named a Ronson (after the Ronson firelighter that 'always struck first time'). Compare to the Russian T-34, German Mark IV or British Cromwell and the results are clear....Not only that but experience is gained through war- which Russia, Germany and basicly everyone but the Yanks saw first. America doesnt see war in Europe till '44. The rest of the Allies have been kicking around since '39.

And for war industry- Germany had lousy war industry compared to Russia or US but built the most sophisticated tanks. For training...well American commanders in Europe were so worried by D-day they hired British specialists to help train themextra because their training process was felt to leave the recruits too raw.

In Korea unit for unit the Americans were often outfought by their UN buddies. As said before- look at the Irriwaddy.

Back to Top
bigtoothbrush View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121
  Quote bigtoothbrush Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2006 at 10:00

lets be fair to those yankees. russki just won germany. and a lot of its material munitions were supported by the americans, so were the other allies'. money is almost everything. if not american super economy and industry power continuously kept supporting all kinds of stuffs to the allies, none of them could go on fighting. 

when talking about equipments, please don't just compare the single weaponw since modern warfare is based upon competition between two sides' whole systems. american tanks may be not good at that time, but they always get air superiority, they also could collect much more and more exact battle field informations than the enemies done. single american weapon may be not the top dog, but yankees always could whip the enemies with its superior systemic cooperation. just like today, the M1A2SEP may not as good as the LEO2A6 but it's impossible germans could confront americans in a full-scale warfare. 

Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 05-Nov-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1028
  Quote xristar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2006 at 11:16
bigtoothbrush, you are brainwashed.
Indeed in WWII Americans gained a lot of experience. But the Normandy invasion was not successful due to their fighting capabilities, but due to the exhausting numerical of the allies. When the Americans appeared first in North Africa they were so badly crashed, that the Germans thought of them as unable to fight.
In Korea, pretty much the same happened. After WWII, the US army shrinked incredibly, to the size of around 10 divisions. These divisions were scattered throughout the whole world, for occupying reasons. When suddently the Korean war broke out, the American forces in Japan, were so poorly prepared that they met horrible defeats when they landed in Korea. They became better in the course, but as in 1942, same in 1950, they were too inexperienced. In the same time, the allied troops, either had recent experience (as the Greeks) or had kept a high level in their army (Commonwealth).

Back to Top
Dampier View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
  Quote Dampier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2006 at 11:32

Also some of those Commonwealth troops had been fighting in Greece! The Paras i believe were there.

Umm...America did not supply Russia with huge numbers of tanks, nor indeed did it provide Britian with enormouss amounts. Commonwealth i know gave America its jet blueprints and research (no one knows why) had Enigma, ran ALL intelligence in Europe/Africa as well as coordinating special forces, partisans and resistance. American air support was exactly the same as Commonwealth; Typhoon, Spitfire, Lancaster. All saw more action and were incredibly effective. US air support was about 50% to Commonwealth 50%. There were more Commonwealth ships than American.

OK, not one on one; German tank forces (Wittmann mean anything to you) generally beat Allied forces and only lost due to numbers. Similarly with the Russians.

Look at it this way, number the last 50 WW2/Korea films and answer how many have Americans, then look at the numbers involved in every theatre of war. I would say that the of the last 50 only 5 or so didnt have Americans as the main protaginists (Stalingrad, Enemy at the Gates, Tae Guk Gi, Battle of Britain and A Bridge too Far [unmitigated nonsense that one and rather blatently designed with American audiences in mind])

Back to Top
bigtoothbrush View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121
  Quote bigtoothbrush Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2006 at 13:01

only brainwashed people would say the others are brainwashed.

i'm not gonna convince you my opinion. i think you also don' t have to force me to believe what you believe. we just keep eachothers' own ideas. so be it. 

Back to Top
Dampier View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
  Quote Dampier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-May-2006 at 13:17

Hmm....umm, no non brainwashed people can say others are brainwashed. Otherwise bang goes anyone who ever mentioned propaganda brainwash....surely that would make you brainwashed too...or maybe you were brainwashed to believe that....etc etc.

Not brainwashing, Britian ignores Korea. In fact the only Korean war sites/books/films I've seen are either S. Korean or American and fgenerally ocusing on those two bar mentions of the Irriwaddy....

Its not my opinion, its history.

Back to Top
shayan View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 03-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 106
  Quote shayan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2006 at 09:20
do any of you have good political cartoons of the war?
Iran parast
Back to Top
Dampier View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
  Quote Dampier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2006 at 12:51

Originally posted by shayan

do any of you have good political cartoons of the war?

'fraid not.

Back to Top
bigtoothbrush View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: China
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 121
  Quote bigtoothbrush Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2006 at 13:01

here is an interesting article by a korean

Who Started The Korean War?
Lee Wha Rang - June 1997
This is a 'chicken or egg' question.



Two little kids (Gen. Kim Ilsung and Dr. Rhee Syngman) started throwing punches and yelling dirty words at each other. They got madder and madder and their punches got harder and harder. Eventually, Kim got really mad and knocked down Rhee.

Rhee's Uncle Sam (Gen. Douglas McArthur) rushed over and punched out Kim. Now, Kim's Uncle (Chairman Mao) came over and kicked Uncle Sam very hard. Sam and Mao pushed and shoved for a while and then decided it was not their fight and called it quit.

Kim and Rhee, now up on their feet, wanted the fight to go on, but the big boys hushed them up.

An old man came along and asked the boys - 'Who started the fight?' Kim pointed at Rhee and Rhee pointed at Kim. The old man looked things over and decided that both boys were equally guilty of starting the fight.

The wise old man said:

'When two whales fight, millions of shrimps die.'

Technically speaking, N Korea crossed the 38th and invaded S Korea en mass on June 25, 1950 and thus started the Korean War. Prior to this date, N Korea had an active guerrilla war in S Korea. Both North and South engaged in small scale (battalion or sm aller units) border clashes which had the bulk of the S Korean troops tied up along the border.

It is not clear why Kim Il Sung did not continue his G-war which might have succeeded in toppling Rhee's government. It is not likely that US would have intervened in covert warfare. Kim became impatient and gambled - and lost big.

On the other hand, the Rhee invaded N Korea, with MacArthur's tacit approval or direct command, in spite of repeated Chinese warnings. MacArthur was more interested in promoting war (and his fame) than the welfare of the Korean people. It was a tragic mi stake for Pres. Truman to allow MacArthur's vanity to dictate the course of the war.

It is true that Truman sacked the general later on, but the damage had already been done. The Chinese came in as they had promised and the War stopped more or less along the 38th parallel. Millions of people died and the whole of North Korea was devasta ted.

Kim Il Sung is guilty of invading S Korea and Rhee Syngman is guilty of invading N Korea. Both men are dead now. Should they be judged as war criminals who destroyed Korea? One should not blame one without blaming the other as well.
The root cause of the war
In 1945, we Koreans mistakenly believed that Japan's surrender meant independence at last. Little they knew that US was planning to impose a 40+ year trusteeship for Korea. US officials in charge of the Korean policy had no knowledge of the Korean histo ry or any interest in the Korean people. It is ironic that Dean Rusk, one of the policy makers, would go on to formulate the disastrous US policy for Vietnam.

In Vietnam, there was a cohesive united front led by Ho Chi Min and a sizable military force. In contrast, Korean resistance was hopelessly fractured and scattered in small bands in China, USSR and USA. There was no Uncle Ho or a credible fighting force i n Korea.

Some people say that Syngman Rhee had sold out the Republic to US, but in reality, the fate of Korea was in the hands of foreigners and no Korean leader had any say on the matter. Dr. Rhee, pretending to cooperate with US, outfoxed the Americans and ended the US occupation (after 2 years instead of 40-50 years!). The same goes to Gen. Kim Il Sung. Neither man had the stature to influence Stalin or US. By working with the foreign powers, they were able to salvage some semblance of nationhood in Koreas.

Gen. Kim's preoccupation with self reliance (Ju Che) had its origin in the humiliating treatments he had received from Soviet commanders in Korea and Stalin's underlings. Stalin treated Gen. Kim as a Soviet Army major - not as a peer leader of a nation. To US, Gen. Kim was a Russian army captain pretending to be the legendary Korean patriot Kim Il Sung. US treatments of Dr. Rhee were no better. Indeed. US has tried to eliminate him on a number of occasions for not following American orders!.

Both men had done their best for Korea. It is not likely that Korea would have fared any better under other leaders. At any rate both men were true Korean patriots. It is time to move on toward reconciliation and reunification. 

http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/started.htm

Back to Top
shayan View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 03-May-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 106
  Quote shayan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2006 at 13:54

Can someone please explain this cartoon for me its about a conflict but i dont really understand it and who are these man in the pictures?
Iran parast
Back to Top
Lord Ranulf View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 28-Mar-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 309
  Quote Lord Ranulf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2006 at 14:15
One of the most definitive works ever written on the subject after SLA Marshal:
 
FORGOTTEN WAR (Hardcover)
by Clay Blair
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1564
  Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-May-2006 at 14:25

Wow toothbrush, you sure know your stuff. You're able able to focus down on the important things and ignore all the irrelevant stuff...like facts.

You should write a book for people who don't want to take the time required to actually make an educated opinion. I know...you can call it "History As Viewed Through A Straw".



Edited by DukeC
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.093 seconds.