| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Should foreigners have fought in the Korean War? |
| Yes, the Korean War was necessary, and the sacrifices of foreigners worthwhile. |
|
45% |
[ 14 ] |
| The Korean War was necessary, but the South Koreans should have been allowed to fight it themselves. |
|
12% |
[ 4 ] |
| No, the Korean War was not necessary, and foreigners should have stayed out of it. |
|
9% |
[ 3 ] |
| No, the Korean War would not have been necessary if the American military were not stationed in South Korea. |
|
6% |
[ 2 ] |
| I don't know enough about the history of the Korean War to say whether it was necessary. |
|
6% |
[ 2 ] |
| I think the South Koreans may believe the war was not necessary, but I believe it was. |
|
9% |
[ 3 ] |
| Other. I think that.... |
|
9% |
[ 3 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 31 |
|
| Author |
Message |
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Well only half the peninsula is starving now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
agentX
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Location: Jeolla province
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I chose #1 on the line of reasoning that Stalin gave approval to Kim Il Sung to invade the South. Therefore, without the approval of the Russians there wouldn't be an invasion. Therein, the UN intervening on the side of the South Koreans was justified.
The intervention of the Chinese should have been accounted for by MacCarthur and the generals. Not counting on it was a serious blunder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Css wrote: |
The Japanese surrended and signed for peace..All the japanese troops were still left in their little huts all over the place. The Americans invited the Russians into Korea to accept the surrender of the Japanese troops in the north while the Americans did the same in the south.
|
I think Russian troops entered Korea first, so the Americans were forced to "invite" them if they wanted any influence in Korea.
Anyways, I would say the sacrifices of the many dead soldiers were worth it. If Korea were unified under rule of the communist north, Korea would be more like North Korea, and that funky satellite image of Korea would be dark. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Css"]
| jvalmer wrote: |
| The south got their arses kicked because they had been disarmed by the US...They had light weapons, rifles and submachine guns against artillery and tanks....so the US had to come in to help... |
Disarm them?
That would imply that the South Koreans had heavy artiliry prior to that which they didn't.
What exactly do you mean by disarm? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The Americans invited the Russians into Korea |
Link please. |
I was under the impression from the few books I've read on the subject that the Americans had previously asked the Russians to form a western front against the Japanese. Particulary in Manchiria, would could also include the Korean pennensula. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Miles Rationis
Joined: 08 May 2007
Location: Just Say No To Korea!
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| American foreign interventionism was a mistake back then and it is now as well; Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, etc... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| agentX wrote: |
I chose #1 on the line of reasoning that Stalin gave approval to Kim Il Sung to invade the South. Therefore, without the approval of the Russians there wouldn't be an invasion. Therein, the UN intervening on the side of the South Koreans was justified.
The intervention of the Chinese should have been accounted for by MacCarthur and the generals. Not counting on it was a serious blunder. |
MacArthur had contigencies for the Chinese invasion.
Truman forbade the bombing of bridges on the Yalu or bombing of Chinese troops north of the Yalu.
Truman made the decisions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Miles Rationis wrote: |
| American foreign interventionism was a mistake back then and it is now as well; Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, etc... |
Who would you rather have intervene then?
Do you think these vacuums would remain vacuums? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| When talking to people, I can be pretty anti-American at times. But in the past, I think American intervention was well-intended (in most cases) and beneficial (in some cases). However in the case of Iraq, the reason for invading is questionable at best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| I have a much simpler answer. Separating Korea into two countries was a mistake. The Korean War was just the result of that mistake. |
I tend to agree that war was inevitable once the country was split into two but it's arguable whether separating the peninsula into two was a 'mistake'. On the one hand we can blame Stalin for his late entry into the eastern theatre resulting in division of the country into 2 zones; and some would blame America for selecting the 38th parallel more or less arbitrarily, and for occupying the southern half at all rather than 'conceding' it all to the Russians pro tem. There is little doubt that no one considered the interests and rights of the Koreans themselves at that time.
On the other hand, I don't think you can blame the Americans for not handing over the whole peninsula to the Russians given that, as far as everyone was concerned at that time, Korea was just another part of the Japanese empire, and the Russians were allies cooperating in occupying this enemy territory, and helping with the logistics issue of arranging for the surrender of Japanese troops in the region. The occupation was only supposed to be temporary, and American troops were in fact withdrawn by 1950.
You can accuse the Americans of interfering too much in South Korean politics - suppressing communist and socialist parties, and appointing or re-appointing right-wingers to government positions, many if not most of whom were former collaborators with Japan, thus not exactly inspiring figures. Evidence suggests most of Korea would have gone socialist at that time if left alone, i.e. that the movement was truly grassroots rather than masterminded by Stalin or Mao. The Korean guerrillas of Manchuria who took over in the North obviously did have ties to Mao and Stalin but weren't stooges. Then again, you can hardly blame America for wanting a regime in South Korea that was friendly to themselves and organised on the democratic/capitalist principles they believed to be both the fairest and most practical. They were only supporting those they regarded (misguidedly or not) as friends against committed ideological enemies.
It's probably fair to say the Americans handled the situation clumsily by backing Synghman Rhee - someone who was provocatively aggressive with the north, or even gunning for war - and then withdrawing, leaving the south a temptingly soft and easy target to the north. The north had most of the industry, weapons, and experienced soldiers, veterans from Manchurian guerrilla wars with experience fighting alongside the Chinese nationalist resistance to the Japanese too. It's fair to say the north had the moral advantage too - the support of a genuine nationwide patriotic socialist movement.
Would the north have attacked if American troops had remained in the south? Should Mac Arthur have remained at the 38th parallel after the Incheon landings? Who knows. The result would still have been permanent division but without the suffering of the Korean War.
I wouldn't call the Korean War 'necessary' in the sense of 'necessary in order to avoid something' but pretty hard to avoid.
Those who have read it can probably tell I get most of my information from Bruce Cumings' North Korea, but he argues a very convincing case.
P.S. Cumings also describes the South Korean soldiers as 'running like turpentined rats'. I think it's pretty clear South Korea would have lost without help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Css
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Location: South of the river
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
Disarm them?
That would imply that the South Koreans had heavy artiliry prior to that which they didn't.
What exactly do you mean by disarm? |
I didnt say heavy artillery btw.
Japanese equipment id imagine...and maybe that was phrased badly...Maybe stopped them from arming themselves to an equivalent level would have been better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Css
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Location: South of the river
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The Americans invited the Russians into Korea |
Link please. |
I dont have links to hand...Im going by what I learnt during my degree classes..but heres a reference to it in the wiki page, if you put any faith in that.
| Quote: |
| At the close of World War II, forces of both the Soviet Union and the United States occupied the Korean peninsula in accordance with an agreement put forth by the United States government. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Css wrote: |
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| I have a much simpler answer. Separating Korea into two countries was a mistake. The Korean War was just the result of that mistake. |
It wasnt seperated into two countries..it was seperated into two zones in which to accept the japanese surrender. It was never supposed to be a permanent thing...but the war made it that way. |
Zones, countries, doesn't change my argument.
I really think Kim Ilsung should've listened to Kim Ku and the South Koreans should've voted against Rhee Syngman. Also I think Kim Ku shouldn't've boycotted the election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vancouver
Joined: 12 Dec 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Explat
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Location: Downtown Pleides
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, from what I am reading, I have to wonder if many Koreans harbor a deep resentment toward Americans and other Westerners, but are generally too polite to say so to their face.
Have any of you tried discussing this with Koreans?
And I wonder what Koreans are being taught about their country's history iin school, how accurate it is, and whether they know enough to even care? Do these kids we are teaching know enough to write more than five sentences about the Korean War? How many Korean kids and adults know the bare facts, like how many Koreans and foreigners died defending South Korea? I haven't met one who got the numbers anywhere near right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
