The Korean war

Status
Not open for further replies.

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Once US reached the Yalu River they stopped and had no intension of coming into China so it was China that attacked US and pushed them back to the parrael line.

China should not have got involved in korean war because North Korean then turn to Soviet Union and spit in face of Chinese after Chinese help.
 

Player 0

Junior Member
If you look at South Korea and compare with North you know who really won that war, I wish China never entered that war because today the whole Korean Peninusla would have been one big massive economic powerhouse.

I hold China respondsible for creation of a lunatic country like North Korea and it is its responsibility to help North Koreans get ride of that lunatic leader kimmy.

Actually throughout most of their history during the Cold War, NKorea was economically superior to the south, it's only within the last three decades with the fall of the USSR that things went bad for NKorea.

Once US reached the Yalu River they stopped and had no intension of coming into China so it was China that attacked US and pushed them back to the parrael line.

China should not have got involved in korean war because North Korean then turn to Soviet Union and spit in face of Chinese after Chinese help.

What do you base that off of exactly? The fact that the US didn't continue the war and try to force communists out of Korea? The US, if victorious in Korea with no direct intervention from the PRC or the USSR would've most likely attacked China next as China was a weak nation with a new government at that time, although it's unlikely they'd succeed that wouldn't mean they wouldn't be emboldened by their early successes and try to replicate it in all other parts of Asia where communism existed, it's the same reason why Hitler sought to attack the USSR after the conquest of Poland, why the Japanese wanted to take the entire ROC after they had taken Manchuria with no resistence by the local armed forces.
 

Norfolk

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Player 0 is right about North Korea's industrial development versus South Korea's, to a point. Prior to the Korean War, the northern part of Korea was not only Korea's industrial heartland, but was one of the industrial powerhouses of the Japanese Empire. That is, until the Soviets occupied the area at the end of WWII and US strategic bombing during the Korean War substantially reduced the remainder. Finally, of course, industrial development in the South had surpassed that in the North by the 1960's or 1970's.

As to whether the U.S. would have invaded Manchuria or not, whether the PRC knew it or not, the U.S. simply had no intention of invading. It was obsessed with the old warning to "avoid engaging in a land war on the mainland of Asia". The US did not even attempt such a thing during WWII (minus a few thousand of Merill's Marauder's in India and Burma, and thence to advisory missions in China), even though their principal ally in the Pacific Theatre, China, was holding down the bulk of Japan's military force. That should speak volumes about what U.S. thinking with regards to fighting in China would entail; clearly they balked at the very notion. That they even intervened in Korea to prevent the fall of the South marked quite a departure in US foreign policy, as prior to the Korean War the US really was adverse to engaging in any major wars short of general war itself. In any case, both the Administration and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were opposed to entering China, and very deliberately adopted the policy of "Limited War"; the Korean War of course was the first time the U.S. had done so, and indeed the policy was invented for the occasion, including the deliberate refraining from the resort to atomic weapons for fear of it provoking a general war with the Soviets. Finally, the US simply lacked the strength to advance beyond the Yalu River, and in the event, did not even possess the strength to hold it against the PVA.

One thing that the PRC leadership did know, or at least firmly believed, was that they could hold the UN Forces well south of the Yalu River at the very least. And of course, the PVA actually attempted to drive the UN Forces deep into the South, if not drive them out of Korea entirely. The PRC would not have dispatched the PVA to war in Korea if it genuinely feared an U.S.-led UN invasion of China; if it had, it would have massed its forces in Manchuria and deployed them for defence in order to receive a militarily superior enemy. That the UN Forces were not militarily superior, or at least not sufficiently such to afford them the ability to invade China, was implicitly understood by the PRC leadership and the PLA. Otherwise, dispatching the PVA to Korea would simply have been tossing good troops to the wolves. In the event, of course, the PVA nearly drove the UN out of Korea in late 1950/early 1951, and the UN proved able - and willing - to only seek to restore something like the original demarcation line between North and South.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
It wasn't the PRC leadership that made the decision to intervene, if you define leadership as being the generals and anyone else high above who isn't Mao. Its Stalin goading Mao to do so, and Stalin probably planted the idea in Mao's head that if he didn't invade, China would be next on the US target list. Stalin also promised lots of support to Mao.

I like Norfolk's explanation but it may seem too rational and Mao doesn't act rational all the time and does not listen to his generals all the time either. In fact he tends to be more distrustful of them. Call it more as personality driven decisions rather than rational ones.
 

Player 0

Junior Member
^Just because the US wouldn't invade right after in a hypothetical scenario of winning the Korean war, doesn't mean the US wouldn't plan on developping Japan and Korea to use as a spring board to launch some future invasion of the PRC and the USSR's far east, who's to say that if success occurred in Korea and maybe Vietnam future generations of leaders might become over confident and choose to ignore the risks of a land war in Asia, much in the way the current neo-conservative administration has done now.
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Actually throughout most of their history during the Cold War, NKorea was economically superior to the south, it's only within the last three decades with the fall of the USSR that things went bad for NKorea.
.

And at the end of the day the final result counts, North Korea may have been more advanced than the South in years gone by but today it langs behind because the IDEALOGY failed it! South was slow to strat but in the end with the right policy the suceed.

North Korea is behind because they follow Soviets which led to the collpase of the Soviet Union and today USA is world superpower because USSR idealogy was flawed it only work for short term not long term. South Korea is the winner in the end because of superior thinking by its goverment.

What do you base that off of exactly? The fact that the US didn't continue the war and try to force communists out of Korea? The US, if victorious in Korea with no direct intervention from the PRC or the USSR would've most likely attacked China next as China was a weak nation with a new government at that time, although it's unlikely they'd succeed that wouldn't mean they wouldn't be emboldened by their early successes and try to replicate it in all other parts of Asia where communism existed, it's the same reason why Hitler sought to attack the USSR after the conquest of Poland, why the Japanese wanted to take the entire ROC after they had taken Manchuria with no resistence by the local armed forces.

I dont understand how u can say this, everyone knows that if it wasnt for China then Japanese would have went onto Australia and India and even on to the middleast if China never fight against Japanese in WWII.

US knew this and China is a huge country Japanese failed to take it and it was very powerful nation and because of Chinese efforts finally Japanese surrendered, taking China is a crazy idea and US had no intensions to use military action against China, they already had the Soviets to worry about.

US just wanted to re-control Korea from the Soviets, it was a Soviet-US cold war which China was trapped into and China paid a price for no reason. To think that USA and its allies wanted to cross Yalu River is false they would never want to start a war with worlds most populated country it wasnt on the agenda and not even in the planning.

Once US reached Yaku river they stopped they never advanced they re-grouped and was starting to depart when China attacked. China is responsible for creation of North Korea that is a fact.
 

Player 0

Junior Member
And at the end of the day the final result counts, North Korea may have been more advanced than the South in years gone by but today it langs behind because the IDEALOGY failed it! South was slow to strat but in the end with the right policy the suceed.

North Korea is behind because they follow Soviets which led to the collpase of the Soviet Union and today USA is world superpower because USSR idealogy was flawed it only work for short term not long term. South Korea is the winner in the end because of superior thinking by its goverment.


I dont understand how u can say this, everyone knows that if it wasnt for China then Japanese would have went onto Australia and India and even on to the middleast if China never fight against Japanese in WWII.

US knew this and China is a huge country Japanese failed to take it and it was very powerful nation and because of Chinese efforts finally Japanese surrendered, taking China is a crazy idea and US had no intensions to use military action against China, they already had the Soviets to worry about.

US just wanted to re-control Korea from the Soviets, it was a Soviet-US cold war which China was trapped into and China paid a price for no reason. To think that USA and its allies wanted to cross Yalu River is false they would never want to start a war with worlds most populated country it wasnt on the agenda and not even in the planning.

Once US reached Yaku river they stopped they never advanced they re-grouped and was starting to depart when China attacked. China is responsible for creation of North Korea that is a fact.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


No, although the USSR suffered problems from poor leadership that was unwilling or unable to adapt economic policies due to conflicts with their ideology, though i'm sure its not nearly that simple, the DPRK suffers from problems largely due to the international situation with the fall of the USSR and being unable to effectively reform since 1. US and other developed nations refuse to lift sanctions against NKorea, this is part of the US' strategy with many third world countries, hoping tat through causing the economy problems the governemnt will whither and fall. 2. Although the Chinese have been trying to get the NKorean government to change their ways and open up to SKorean and Chinese investment and reforms, the NKorean government is a fiercely independent group, as shown by their ideology Juche, which places importance on political independence more than economic independence.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Actually no they would've never been able to, Japan's small size, lack of natural resources and small population was a major hinderance to its imperialistic goals, that's the main reason why they lost to the US even though they were superior in the early part of the war.

As the US doesn't suffer from these problems and had a much bigger population than Japan, the government would've seen itself as having a far better chance to defeat China during this period, wanting to reinstall the KMT government, they would've seen this as a great oppertunity to further their goals of crushing communism in Asia as the Chinese government during that period was still new, suffering still from the damage done to it by Japan, and still fought to maintain control over the country from remaining KMT guerrilla forces. Though it wouldn't happen during the Truman period if he won the Korean war, it would give American politicians and military leaders the belief that they could effective remove the CCP with overt force, much in the same way the current administration's policy of regime change was influenced by earlier US success in Iraq and the general winning of the cold war.

It wasn't at the time because it wasn't considered feasible or because they lacked confidence in their plans and the popularity of the KMT, that doesn't mean future regimes wouldn't have been emboldened to, after all the US and it's allies didn't have any intention of overthrowing Saddam and occupying Iraq in the first Gulf War.

Actually the US general Macarthur believed that China should be bombed in order to defeat NKorea as NKorean troops were being supplied from there, and if they stopped at the Yalu that didn't mean they would expand the war right away to attack China, that would be foolish, what they would've done would be to establish Korea as a major US base with the proper infrastructure and industry to make it an effective spring board for US operations in northeast Asia, consilidating their positionand then attacking China later.
 
Last edited:

adeptitus

Captain
VIP Professional
The Korean war era was a very different time, when the technology and conventional military gap between East and West wasn't as large. If you compare the battlefield casualties from WW2 & Korean War to Desert Storm, you can understand a commander's hesitation in widening a war against China and very possibly, the Soviet Union.

The era of 1950s-1960's was also a time when we weren't certain of the "west" or "capitalist" world's superiority over communism. The Soviet Union experienced post-WW2 reconstruction boom, and its scientific advances was head-to-head with the US in the space race.

I think around 1970s they started stagnating, and the USSR started playing Santa Claus to COMECON and other Soviet-friendly countries, providing them with subsidies trade and economic/military aid. This provided countries like Cuba and N. Kora with unhealthy economics to slug along over the next couple of decades on handouts. And once the handouts stopped, their economies collapsed.

Whatever heavy industrial development advantage North Korea had enjoyed in post-Korean War era was long-obsolete along with steel and coal economies by 1991.

The USSR basically bought money pits with their foreign policy. For those unfamiliar, a money pit is a hole in the ground that you dump money into and get little to nothing out of. To make things worse, these holes get deeper over time so no matter how much money you pour into it, it'd never be filled.
 

hanqiang1011

New Member
You don't know that. Despite all the revolutionary talks, it is common knowlege that Mao saw himself as a chinese emperor, if you read his poems it's so obvious, he compared himself with all the famous emperors in the past, including Gehgis Kahn, and find that he is better than all of them. He did everything he could to stay in power, killed everyone who could threat him.

It is only logical that he would pass his power to his son. Sending his son to korea war was a move to build up his son's reputation, Mao Anying was placed in the army headquarter of the chief commander general Peng De Huai, he was never near a real battle. He was only unlucky that one day when Peng left, american planes bombed the headquarter and killed him. General Peng was one of the best generals of PLA, but Mao punished him for the death of Anying, Peng died a miserable death.

Mao did not punished General Peng when the latter came back from Korea. In fact, he was plunged during the Cultural Revolution which happened many many years after the Korean War. After General Peng came back from Korean, he was made a Marshall in 1955.

From Wikipedia: "In June 1959, he tried to tell Chairman Mao at the Lushan Conference that the Great Leap Forward was a dramatic mistake. This statement would later cost him his life during the Cultural Revolution. Neither Mao nor Peng wanted a split but once Mao initiated the break with Peng, the whole Politburo and the Central Committee were bound to support Mao. They all quarreled with Peng, with Lin Biao the leader.

He was disgraced in 1959, in part because of his criticisms of Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward that went beyond what Mao considered legitimate. Mao accepted that there had been mistakes, including the 'backyard furnaces', but still saw the process as generally positive. Mao had even suggested that Peng write a criticism - whether this was a trap or whether Peng went too far is moot. Definitely, Mao started treating him as an enemy. As a consequence, he was removed from all posts and placed under constant supervision and house arrest in Chengdu, Sichuan; Lin Biao took over the post of Minister of Defense. Peng was eventually exiled, and shunned for the next 16 years of house arrest."

He was cleared of all charges and reaffirmed his contributions to the Chinese Revolution in 1978.

Definately one of the best field commanders of the PLA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top