Korean War

[JimmerDunda]

I wonder why so many people consider the Korean War a failure? Many people do not realize that the initial goal of the campaign was to stop the North from invading the South. Which we did successfully. However our moronic general McArthur decided to push further and aggravate China, who then sent soldiers to back up North Korea. They pushed back to the border and now we have today. The original goal was to preserve to the independence of the South and we just did that. Just because we didn't successfully invade the North too means we lost the war.

Your thoughts?

 

[SonicKoala]

Well, it's just as you said. Because of Macarthur's decision to invade North Korea, it turned what could of been a solid victory for the U.S. into this clusterfuck which cost a lot more lives than were necessary. Oh, and don't call MacArthur a moron, he sure showed them Japs a thing or two.

 

[Satin6T]

ummmm according to what I was taught, MacArthur never tried to push further but China decided it would be great to tell everyone he did so they could take help push us back

but still
we did "win" i guess
but the whole keep the commies at bay thing is generally thought of as a misstep nowadays
so i guess that contributes

(i'm sorry if this isn't as coherent as i think it is, it's 2:30 here)

 

[Motti]

Well, it's just as you said. Because of Macarthur's decision to invade North Korea, it turned what could of been a solid victory for the U.S. into this clusterfuck which cost a lot more lives than were necessary. Oh, and don't call MacArthur a moron, he sure showed them Japs a thing or two.

No, he was a moron. This is just my opinion mind you, but he showed a tendency (at least with Australian troops) to completely ignore what it was actually like at the front and just go with whatever. Despite having never been to Papua New Guinea, he excpected us to fight on outnumbered, untrained and with little supplies.

 

[FluffyNeurosis]

MacArthur was the man and if that pussy Truman listed to him and dropped nukes along the Yalu so the Chinese couldn't reinforce we wouldn't have more than one Korea today.

 

[manaman]

MacArthur was the man and if that pussy Truman listed to him and dropped nukes along the Yalu so the Chinese couldn't reinforce we wouldn't have more than one Korea today.

Sorta right. MacArthur had the man power and was good enough to do it. He just couldn't get around that leash on his neck from Washington.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Sorta right. MacArthur had the man power and was good enough to do it. He just couldn't get around that leash on his neck from Washington.

The fact that the Chinese counterattack that came two months after almost obliterated the UN forces rather gives lie to that statement. Sheer weight of numbers and material tends to count for a lot.

 

[dark-amon]

MacArthur was the man and if that pussy Truman listed to him and dropped nukes along the Yalu so the Chinese couldn't reinforce we wouldn't have more than one Korea today.

So you think that the millions of innocent lives that would be lost to such an attack are insingificent? Not to forget what would happen if they actually used a nuclear missile.
I belive that the asnwer to why america never used nukes is because they, and the soviets both realised that the first one to use a nuke, would be the enemy of the world.

 

[thiosk]

MacArthur isn't a moron. There would be no mess now if China had not invaded.

Think about it this way, we were mopping up, then got bum rushed at the chinese border by human wave attacks. Machine gunners surrendered their positions because they simply couldn't bring themselves to keep slaughtering people at that rate. The chinese pushed way hard, then we started pushing them way back, and then the truce was called.

I don't consider MacArthur an idiot for doing exactly what he was supposed to do-- end the Korean war by ending north korea.

I think everyone-- china, north korea, south korea, and everyone else would be better off if the chinese had let MacArthur do his job. MacArthur would have been quite happy with taking china, though, so perhaps we should have just turned him loose. Then again, maybe not, he wanted to just nuke north korea to shut them down.

 

[Nickolai77]

Mc Arthur also wanted to use nuclear bombs as a form of tactical weapon to support his troop's.. however, in his defense, in the 1950's people had a different conception of nuclear weapons than we do today, it is now that we know just how lethal and dangerous they are.

It would indeed have been better if China had let the UN invade N Korea and thus uniting the penisula, unfortunatly i don't think anyone anticipated the sheer number of Chinese that would spill over into N Korea. It makes me wonder how exactly the Chinese where able to push back the UN forces, in modern warfare numbers are not to count for so much.

I'm not expert but perhaps if the allies made increased use of air support (heavy bombers from Japan and fighter bombers based on aircraft carriers around the Korean penisula), retreted to a defensible position within North Korea, dug in and brought up lots of artiellery and supplies, they could have let the Chinese hoards run up against their extensive defenses and wear themselves out. Once the Chinese offensive had lost momentum and it's army de-moralised, the allies push forward into N.Korea. If they are feeling more ambitous, Beijing is not that far away from N.Korea... The Far East would be a lot more peaceful and stable today if that had been the case.

 

[FluffyNeurosis]

MacArthur was the man and if that pussy Truman listed to him and dropped nukes along the Yalu so the Chinese couldn't reinforce we wouldn't have more than one Korea today.

So you think that the millions of innocent lives that would be lost to such an attack are insingificent? Not to forget what would happen if they actually used a nuclear missile.
I belive that the asnwer to why america never used nukes is because they, and the soviets both realised that the first one to use a nuke, would be the enemy of the world.

1 ? It was bombs not missiles
2- Millions would not die from irradiating the border, it would just make it relatively impassable to the hundreds of thousands of Chinese reinforcements.
3- America/USSR never used nukes on each other because each country had the ability to retaliate. Kim il Sung had to convince Stalin to allow him to invade the south and only got his approval when Kim assured Stalin that he wouldn?t have to do anything. Hell, the MIGs Russia sent down wouldn?t go near significant concentrations of allied air power. Russia would not use nukes to defend the DPRK when they didn?t even like risking some fighters. As for being liked be the world, international politics is not a high school popularity contest.

If we had a united Korea after the Korean War any deaths from fallout would probably be outweighed by all the people who would get a chance to live in a country without you know? death camps.

 

[Nepeccel]

If they are feeling more ambitous, Beijing is not that far away from N.Korea... The Far East would be a lot more peaceful and stable today if that had been the case.

The Far East is very stable and peaceful today. I don't understand why you think it isn't. When was the last time China invaded anyone?
The 50s were such a different time than today, countries were still willing to get into large wars for stupid reasons (like to stop communism), something that has changed today.

You also have to remember that China may have one army de-moralised, but they have the population to have another few armies just waiting to take their place.

 

[Spitfire175]

The war would have been a succesfull operation if it wasn't for lazy preparation and outdated tactics. The US underestimated the Koreans, overestiamted their troops and ignored China.

 

[Nickolai77]

The Far East is very stable and peaceful today. I don't understand why you think it isn't. When was the last time China invaded anyone?

What about N.Korea? China does not go about invading people no, but it's record on human right's combined with it's economic and military power does mean that their is friction between China and the West.

The 50s were such a different time than today, countries were still willing to get into large wars for stupid reasons (like to stop communism), something that has changed today.

You also have to remember that China may have one army de-moralised, but they have the population to have another few armies just waiting to take their place.

Your probably right there, perhaps taking the fight onto China would not have been feasable.

 

[dark-amon]

[
1 ? It was bombs not missiles
2- Millions would not die from irradiating the border, it would just make it relatively impassable to the hundreds of thousands of Chinese reinforcements.
3- America/USSR never used nukes on each other because each country had the ability to retaliate. Kim il Sung had to convince Stalin to allow him to invade the south and only got his approval when Kim assured Stalin that he wouldn?t have to do anything. Hell, the MIGs Russia sent down wouldn?t go near significant concentrations of allied air power. Russia would not use nukes to defend the DPRK when they didn?t even like risking some fighters. As for being liked be the world, international politics is not a high school popularity contest.

If we had a united Korea after the Korean War any deaths from fallout would probably be outweighed by all the people who would get a chance to live in a country without you know? death camps.

Hm, I thought they had developed them into missiles at that time, but perhaps that was some years later.
if you think no lives would be lost because they aimed at the border I think you underestimate the power of nukes. Just by using one, the risk for radiation-winds, and destroying water, local ecosystem, small villages. The damage would be terrible.
In the stalemate between USA and USSR I have little doubt that Europe would turn their backs on US if they used nukes so heedlessly, that's what I meant with the worlds enemy. One who used them would face retaliation with little or no support.
And in the north Korea thing. Invading didn't make Vietnam or Iraq a better place. Evil means never reach a greater good.

 

[FluffyNeurosis]

Hm, I thought they had developed them into missiles at that time, but perhaps that was some years later.
if you think no lives would be lost because they aimed at the border I think you underestimate the power of nukes. Just by using one, the risk for radiation-winds, and destroying water, local ecosystem, small villages. The damage would be terrible.
In the stalemate between USA and USSR I have little doubt that Europe would turn their backs on US if they used nukes so heedlessly, that's what I meant with the worlds enemy. One who used them would face retaliation with little or no support.
And in the north Korea thing. Invading didn't make Vietnam or Iraq a better place. Evil means never reach a greater good.

I don?t underestimate the power of nukes I?ve visited Hiroshima and seen what radiation does to flesh. I think your vastly overestimating the nuclear technology of the time. In the Korean War nobody would retaliate if the US used nukes, Mao only supported Kim after Stalin gave the ok and then only sent troops because he was convinced that the US would cross the Yalu to get the DPRK forces in China. I agree Europe would ***** about the US using nukes but they wouldn?t actually do anything about it because Communism was seen as something that threatened the entire west back then. Holding North Korea would be preferable to the divided Korea we have today because the people of the north live in a hell hole.
As for evil means never reaching a greater good I think WWII was pretty justified even if we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians by bombing cities. Come to think of it the Mexican-American war was the largest single land grab in history and it?s still working out pretty good for us. Also Charles Martell looting churches to get money to build an army to stop the Muslim conquest of Europe was awesome. If looting churches to get money to kill your fellow man isn?t evil I don?t know what is.

 

[AcrylicHero]

MacArthur was probably THE no nonsense, punch the reds and nazis in the face guy of the time. He did have a "no goddamn commie in my backgarden" policy, yet still it can't be denied that he didn't know a thing or two about war since his breakout of the Pusan Pocket did completely turn the tables.
Still his personal political zeal did get in the way in the end, as he did push too far into North Korea towards China with some bizarre belief that the Chinese would not respond. North Korea was a valuable ally and pressure point for China against both the West and Stalin. There was a falling out between Beijing and Moscow around that time, which appears in the later years as well, and North Korea could be used as a buffer zone and as a new location to spread Beijing's version of communism. I highly doubt that china would abandon such a valuable leverage against both it's enemies.

I'm not expert but perhaps if the allies made increased use of air support (heavy bombers from Japan and fighter bombers based on aircraft carriers around the Korean penisula), retreted to a defensible position within North Korea, dug in and brought up lots of artiellery and supplies, they could have let the Chinese hoards run up against their extensive defenses and wear themselves out. Once the Chinese offensive had lost momentum and it's army de-moralised, the allies push forward into N.Korea. If they are feeling more ambitous, Beijing is not that far away from N.Korea... The Far East would be a lot more peaceful and stable today if that had been the case.

I think that's how the later part of the war rolled out pretty much minus the ally push into N korea you mentioned near the end. The Chinese advance was pretty damn quick, allies entrenched themselves near the 38th parallel and chinese followed suit. I think the problem with aerial battles was that the UN and US planes were horrifically outnumbered and I think the chinese had much more bases their airforce could operate from and into the warzone. Plus the UN fleet could have been occupied with keeping south korea and the UN army alive by maintaining the supply routes.

Furthermore invading China would have been catastrophic. Someone did mention that Stalin would have let north korea fall, which is true, but I have doubts that he would've let china fall. Beijing, despite it's differences and arguments with Moscow, was the communist centre of the far east and letting it fall could have created a reverse domino reaction (communist states falling one after the other as opposed to the original theory)and also with China in western hands meant that their very own enemies would be pretty much next to them. Plus use of nuclear bombs would have definitely sparked Stalin's attention.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I'm not expert but perhaps if the allies made increased use of air support (heavy bombers from Japan and fighter bombers based on aircraft carriers around the Korean penisula), retreted to a defensible position within North Korea, dug in and brought up lots of artiellery and supplies,

That's what they did. Pulled back to defensive positions, and let the Chinese spend their offensive efforts on prepared defensive positions. It then degenerated into a rather western-front esque stalemate that has continued on to this day.

They could have let the Chinese hoards run up against their extensive defenses and wear themselves out. Once the Chinese offensive had lost momentum and it's army de-moralised, the allies push forward into N.Korea. .

Unfeasible. Once you dig in, your enemy digs in as well, and cleaning a determined, well-supplied and fanatically motivated army of several millions out of defensive positions is not something the allies were in a position to do, given how severely they had been mauled in the combined DPRK/Chinese offensive. Basically, any offensive efforts would have been utterly futile, much like the Western Front in the Great War.

If they are feeling more ambitous, Beijing is not that far away from N.Korea... The Far East would be a lot more peaceful and stable today if that had been the case.

Again - trench warfare. There's simply no way to beat it, save incredibly massive offensives, and the west was too exhausted to mount anything like that.

 

[Nickolai77]

*snip*

Alright then, but what i don't get is that the Korean war, was, pretty much, a modern war. In theory inventions like tank's and aircraft, features of modern warfare, made trench war obselete. Unless one could argue that the situation in Korea (tough logistics, poor commications, rough terrain and dense forests) meant that airpower, artillery and heavy armour could not be used to its full potential. That could explain why the allies where driven back. I'm finding it pretty hard to understand how the allied armies, with modern equipment and training, backed up with air support and armoured divisions, where pushed back by a hoard of rather enfuastic but untrained, under equiped and under supported Chinese.

 

[AcrylicHero]

*snip*

Alright then, but what i don't get is that the Korean war, was, pretty much, a modern war. In theory inventions like tank's and aircraft, features of modern warfare, made trench war obselete. Unless one could argue that the situation in Korea (tough logistics, poor commications, rough terrain and dense forests) meant that airpower, artillery and heavy armour could not be used to its full potential. That could explain why the allies where driven back. I'm finding it pretty hard to understand how the allied armies, with modern equipment and training, backed up with air support and armoured divisions, where pushed back by a hoard of rather enfuastic but untrained, under equiped and under supported Chinese.

The chinese were not under equipped or under supported. Chinese had a direct land route into north korea, whilst the UN only had ship routes into the South. It should be noted that the allied forces were not only outmanned, but out gunned in pretty much everything except the fleet. Chinese had migs at this stage, and as I mentioned in my earlier post they outnumbered the UN and US aircrafts by a ridiculous ratio, also the chinese had ALOT of t34s. You gotta realize that modern equipment back then weren't so modern, and the soviet equipped chinese weren't too far behind.