|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Kang is a moron? |
| Very much agree |
|
84% |
[ 11 ] |
| Agree |
|
15% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 13 |
|
| Author |
Message |
dbee
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Location: korea
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 6:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Kim Il Sung didn't fight this war alone. His chief sponsor was Stalin and he would have been very reluctant to get involved in this war without an insurance policy which guaranteed Russian and Chinese intervention should the Americans get involved
|
... north korea was a soverign country at the time. The russian sold them the T50 ? tanks in good faith and it was a legitimate business deal. What the north koreans do with them is up to them. You don't have to send your opponents an email telling them your buying new weapons, it's not a part of the 'rules of war'.
... kim Il Sung was perfectly contented to fight the war alone. Simply because he knew he'd win ... easily. Before america invaded, it was a civil war fought between Koreans in a 'may the best side win' scenario. When america invaded, then all bets were off. The involvement of the russians and chinese was essentially a second war, a battle between the superpowers that just happened to take place on korean soil.
| Quote: |
During the first fews months of the war as the marauding North Korean troops took city after city they executed those who wore glasses, had ever owned land, and even those who went to university. Many were put into Pol Pot style collectives too.
|
... the first thing the southern militia's did was to take out any suspected communists, put them against a wall, and shoot them. It was a civil war, it's going to be bloody, innocent people are going to die. Or maybe the definition of 'innocent' doesn't apply in a civil war, since you are either with one side or the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Before america invaded, it was a civil war fought between Koreans in a 'may the best side win' scenario. |
As so many rightly point out, it was the UN not the US who fought in Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbee
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Location: korea
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was choosing not to use the term UN, because in reality it was the US that invaded under a UN banner. Call a spade a spade if you ask me...
Saying that the UN invaded is like saying that the 'coalition of the willing' invaded Iraq. Technically it's true, but if you are trying to examine the circumstances around the event, it just serves to obfuscate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Saying that the UN invaded is like saying that the 'coalition of the willing' invaded Iraq. Technically it's true, but if you are trying to examine the circumstances around the event, it just serves to obfuscate |
You are advised to put on your helmet and start digging a fox hole because you are most likely going to be attacked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dbee wrote: |
| north korea was a soverign country at the time. The russian sold them the T50 ? tanks in good faith and it was a legitimate business deal. What the north koreans do with them is up to them. You don't have to send your opponents an email telling them your buying new weapons, it's not a part of the 'rules of war'. |
You are in danger of building a strawman here. What you are saying is of absolutely no relevance to the points I was making. You have contended via implication that Russian and Chinese support was minimal at the outbreak of the Korean war, and even went as far to suggest that it was limited to a few weapons deals. That's absolute nonsense. Kim Il Sung was itching to fight this war but wouldn't do without clear backing from Moscow. Indeed, Kim Il Sung made many attempts to gain Stalin's support for an attack against the south with repeated failure before he eventually did gain it. This support was crucial in putting DPRK troops on a war footing.
| Quote: |
| ... kim Il Sung was perfectly contented to fight the war alone. Simply because he knew he'd win ... easily. |
Rubbish. Kim Il Sung wasn't content with a solo effort because he was unsure of America's commitment to Korea mostly due to mixed signals eminating from the state department at the time. That's why he was begging Stalin and the Chinese to back his war plans via insurance should the US drag itself into a Korean war. It is by no means certain that Kim Il Sung would have attacked the south without Russian backing and your steadfast contention that this was indeed the case is deceitful.
While Stalin tried to prevent a war in Korea in 1949, the North Korean leadership increasingly put pressure on the Kremlin, demanding permission to liberate the South. On 7 March 1949, while talking to Stalin in Moscow. Kim Il Sung said: "We believe that the situation makes it necessary and possible to liberate the whole country through military means."The Soviet leader disagreed, citing the military weakness of the North, the USSR-USA agreement on the 38th parallel, and the possibility of American intervention.
later Stalin gave his approval to an invasion of the South and outlined his view on how the war had to be prepared.
http://www.kimsoft.com/2001/ussr-kr.htm
If Kim Il Sung was prepared to fight a war against the wishes of that bastion of world communism Russia, then why did he beg Stalin on many occasions to back his war plans, and not start a war when Stalin refused to back those plans? Further, if what you state is true, then why did the war start only once Stalin's blessing had been secured?
| Quote: |
I was choosing not to use the term UN, because in reality it was the US that invaded under a UN banner. Call a spade a spade if you ask me...
Saying that the UN invaded is like saying that the 'coalition of the willing' invaded Iraq. Technically it's true, but if you are trying to examine the circumstances around the event, it just serves to obfuscate. |
When you make statements like this, it hinders your ability to be taken seriously. See Korean war deaths below.
including 33,600 American, 16,000 UN allied
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/korea/kwar.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbee
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Location: korea
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
including 33,600 American, 16,000 UN allied
|
... fair enough, I'll concede that point. It's not accurate or true to claim that 'the US invaded Korea'.
While conceeding that point though, I would like to point out that I also think that the phrase 'the UN invaded Korea' is also somewhat misleading.
The UN was polarized at the time, with one side (the russians) boycotting the high level meetings. In this case the 'UN' represented only one of the two sides.
... in retrospect I think the term 'the US and its allies invaded under a UN flag' would be more accurate.
| Quote: |
It is by no means certain that Kim Il Sung would have attacked the south without Russian backing and your steadfast contention that this was indeed the case is deceitful.
|
... well no it's not certain. And while Kim Il Sung was wise to get the backing of the soviets/chinese before the invasion, he was no idiot. He knew that if he went ahead with the invasion anyway, the hand of the Soviet and chinese would effectively be forced, if the 'US and it's allies invaded under a UN flag' china in particular would have to respond. Either that or have unfriendly bases right along it's southern border.
again, I was taking this in context of the OP. I felt that the 'esteemed prof' meant that Korea would have been better off sorting out it's own problems without the intervention of any of the superpowers. Weapons sales and 'tacit approval' don't constitute intervention in my opinion.
If I were to ask you which 20th century wars america partook in, you'd probably say WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. If you were to extend the meaning of 'partook' to include wars in which they sold weapons to one (or both) of the sides and thus gave tacit approval to, the question would be better phrased 'Which 20th century wars didn't america partake in ?' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pyongshin Sangja
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Location: I love baby!
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| again, I was taking this in context of the OP. I felt that the 'esteemed prof' meant that Korea would have been better off sorting out it's own problems without the intervention of any of the superpowers. |
Korea would have been sorted right into the Warsaw Pact and you'd have been shipped to Siberia.
| Quote: |
| Weapons sales and 'tacit approval' don't constitute intervention in my opinion. |
Without weapons sales from America, Britain would have fallen in 1941.
Without weapons sales from Russia, North Korea wouldn't have been able to attack South Korea. Same as North Vietnam.
Neither of these wars would have occured without International Communism.
Is it intervention? Haven't you heard? Cumings book has been de-bunked.
Saying that the US invaded under a UN flag denigrates the contributions of many other nations.
Russia was boycotting the UN at the time, big mis-calculation. Get over it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbee
Joined: 29 Dec 2004
Location: korea
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Korea would have been sorted right into the Warsaw Pact and you'd have been shipped to Siberia.
Without weapons sales from America, Britain would have fallen in 1941.
Without weapons sales from Russia, North Korea wouldn't have been able to attack South Korea. Same as North Vietnam.
Neither of these wars would have occured without International Communism.
Is it intervention? Haven't you heard? Cumings book has been de-bunked.
Without weapons sales from America, Britain would have fallen in 1941.
Without weapons sales from Russia, North Korea wouldn't have been able to attack South Korea. Same as North Vietnam.
Neither of these wars would have occured without International Communism.
Russia was boycotting the UN at the time, big mis-calculation. Get over it. |
... look PS, I don't particularly feel one way or the other about the incident. I'm just participating in a friendly discussion about the events surrounding the Korean war, in the hope that I can learn more about Korea at the time and present-day korea by a frank exchange of opinions and information. Those that fail to learn from history, are bound to repeat it.
I'm not walking around with a chip on my shoulder because the USSR were boycotting the Security Council or anything. I think that maybe you're getting a little over-excitied. Also, who's cummings ?
| Quote: |
Saying that the US invaded under a UN flag denigrates the contributions of many other nations.
|
... agreed, let's just say then that the US and it's allies invaded under a UN flag. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
