Korean War 70 years later Win Lose and A draw

If there is a clear loser to the war it will be the two Korean nations, with both sides ending up at where they started with tremendous loss in life and blood.

As for the winners it is much more murky, China, Russia and the US & its allies both gain some goals they set out but not all of it. China prevented the fall of the DPKR but US presence still remained on the Peninsular. The same goes with Russia but with the add fact that Moscow now realize how foolish it will be to boycott any Security Council meetings in the future and the value of the veto vote. And while the US failed in the goal of uniting the Korean Peninsular it did succeed in its preliminary goal of preventing the fall of the ROK.

These are the immediate results of the war, I won't go into any alleged indirect benefits or disadvantages all parties faces after that especially after a 20 year timeline because they will involve so many other external factors that it is impossible to have an untainted view point on the matter.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

If that was the case why did they wait 40 years? Shouldn’t the hand over have happened in 1957 not 1997? I mean you make it sound like a curb stomping yet it was a stalemate.

Click to expand...

There is the matter of the treaty which grants only 100 years for the UK to lease HK. Whereas for the Falklands it was ownership in perpetuam. So there is less pressure on Beijing to press the matter then.

Also HK at the time serve as a valuable gateway of commerce between the mainland and the world so financially China would have preferred to have HK retaken in a bloodless manner.

Viktor Jav said:

There is the matter of the treaty which grants only 100 years for the UK to lease HK. Whereas for the Falklands it was ownership in perpetuam. So there is less pressure on Beijing to press the matter then.

Also HK at the time serve as a valuable gateway of commerce between the mainland and the world so financially China would have preferred to have HK retaken in a bloodless manner.

Click to expand...

Nope!, In the Treaty of Nanking, in 1842, the Qing government agreed to make Hong Kong a Crown colony, ceding it 'in perpetuity', following British victory in the First Opium War.

The lease of 99 years was for New Territories

British govt had tried to just return NT and keep HK, but Deng wanted the whole lot and Deng got all of them. HK island wouldn't survive without NT and China.

Remember during the negotiation the economy of the UK is more than 2x of China and HK economy was about 25% of China

Now 2020 : China economy is over 5x the UK and HK economy is only 2% of Chinese economy

So every year Chinese economy grows the same size of 3x Hongkong

And every 3 years Chinese economy grows the same size of the UK economy

The Korean War for the US cost 30 Billion dollars in that era in the last year of the war that amounted to 14.1% of the US economy of the period. Unlike the Second World War the US didn’t shift into a massive command war economy with huge numbers of material given to allied states (lend lease) for a promise of there return that never happened. Nor the loss of extremely expensive materials like carriers. The Korean conflict as such didn’t drag the US economy down.
in some metrics China has eclipsed but it’s a question on sustainability and reliability of the numbers generated by the CCP as well as a declining birth rate and aging our population brought about by the policies of the CCP.

I simply disagree with your assessments that doesn’t mean I am lying or rewriting history. It’s interpretation.

In terms of war the main issue is Objectives. The aims are to meet your objectives and preventing the enemy from doing the same.
the Reason we generally call the Korean War a draw is the Objective of the DPRK was forced reunification. They failed.
The Objective of the UN was forced reunification. They failed.
the Objective of China was to drive the US from Asia. They failed.
The Objective of South Korea was to survive the conflict. Success!
The revised Objective of the DPRK after being pushed back was to push UN forces back, they succeeded only after the PRC intervened. But only as far as the original line of Demarcation which basically ground into a World War One style trenches in the mountains.
Then all parties Objectives again to Reunify the Peninsula or take as much territory as possible. Failed with only marginal success.

Was this a great victory for China? No. They only managed to retain the buffer state of the DPRK.
A state that they have had to support in the modern era at there own cost. It wasn’t a matter of simply being embargoed. The Kims are Nationalists they believe in the Planed economy, purely indigenous and more and more investment in the war industries. Over time more and more fostered the corruption of there own regime establishing a double economic system the standard planed economy for the majority with the Office 39 economy for the leader ship to maintain the standard of living despite famine and inability to modernize there agriculture as well as extreme issues of fuel reliability that prevent the nation from even maintaining reliable power or fueling there nationalized fishing industry. In the later case this forced eventually the “Ghost ships” found along Japanese western coasts where in the formerly nationalized fishing industry liberalized to a degree to harvest sea food markets for indigenous consumption as well as black market export. But relying on small crudely built ships with poor safety and reliability.

antiterror13 said:

Nope!, In the Treaty of Nanking, in 1842, the Qing government agreed to make Hong Kong a Crown colony, ceding it 'in perpetuity', following British victory in the First Opium War.

The lease of 99 years was for New Territories

British govt had tried to just return NT and keep HK, but Deng wanted the whole lot and Deng got all of them. HK island wouldn't survive without NT and China.

Remember during the negotiation the economy of the UK is more than 2x of China and HK economy was about 25% of China

Now 2020 : China economy is over 5x the UK and HK economy is only 2% of Chinese economy

So every year Chinese economy grows the same size of 3x Hongkong

And every 3 years Chinese economy grows the same size of the UK economy

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. If I may be picky. There are in fact 3 treaties. One in 1842 ceding Hong Kong in perpetuity. One in 1860 ceding Kowloon in perpetuity. And one in 1898 ceding New territory on a 99 years please.

antiterror13 said:

Nope!, In the Treaty of Nanking, in 1842, the Qing government agreed to make Hong Kong a Crown colony, ceding it 'in perpetuity', following British victory in the First Opium War.

The lease of 99 years was for New Territories

British govt had tried to just return NT and keep HK, but Deng wanted the whole lot and Deng got all of them. HK island wouldn't survive without NT and China.

Remember during the negotiation the economy of the UK is more than 2x of China and HK economy was about 25% of China

Now 2020 : China economy is over 5x the UK and HK economy is only 2% of Chinese economy

So every year Chinese economy grows the same size of 3x Hongkong

And every 3 years Chinese economy grows the same size of the UK economy

Click to expand...

REEDIT : I don't really understand what is it about people bringing up the issue of economic size in conjuction with whether or not the HK issue was effected by the Korean war. If anything it is totally beside the point.

If anything it did be interesting to see how HK island proper could had been if it was not given back along side with the NT.

Just4Fun said:

Korean War: The First Knell Ringing the Death of 500 Years' Western Dominance

Click to expand...

Honestly Russo-Japanese war in 1904 deserves that credit more.

Viktor Jav said:

REEDIT : I don't really understand what is it about people bringing up the issue of economic size in conjuction with whether or not the HK issue was effected by the Korean war. If anything it is totally beside the point.

If anything it did be interesting to see how HK island proper could had been if it was not given back along side with the NT.

Click to expand...

I answered your statement claiming that "Hongkong was leased for 100 years" which was totally wrong .. accept your mistake matey, don't change the focus

You started it and now you are acting "pot calling the kettle black" .... a bit rich of you!!!

antiterror13 said:

I answered your statement claiming that "Hongkong was leased for 100 years" which was totally wrong .. accept your mistake matey, don't change the focus

You started it and now you are acting "pot calling the kettle black" .... a bit rich of you!!!

Click to expand...

True to that, but looking at the map of HK .It is clear by the simple size disparity that simply getting back the NT proper would have certainly put a lot of pressure of Beijing in comparison to Argentina at the time.

Viktor Jav said:

True to that, but looking at the map of HK .It is clear by the simple size disparity that simply getting back the NT proper would have certainly put a lot of pressure of Beijing in comparison to Argentina at the time.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about .. just stop it .. I don't want to talk about it anymore with you who don't accept your mistake .. just wasting my time .. stop it!!!!