The Korean war

ChinaGuy said:

How did they turn out ? Given their size and proximity, can they be anything other than China's permanent friend ? China had already demonstrated in the past no one will come to Vietnam's rescue should anything bad happens.

As for korea, China will not abandon its friend. Again, that's permanent. China has the strength, will, and longivity to keep that gurantee.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's how the Vietnamese view it.

Scriitor said:

I don't think that's how the Vietnamese view it.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt it. But, its just geopolitical reality. But unlike western imperialism, China sees no need to impose itself militarilly on others. So it can't be too hard for the Vietnamese to choose the best of the evils. The sino-vietnamese war was just a statement and not a way for China to demonstrate its power, because that's already given.

Welcome to the forum ChinaGuy!

Judging by your first few post you need to read the forum rules before you proceed. Follow the link below.

FORUM RULES: Things to Remember Before Posting, important, please read!

Also use the introduction thread to introduce yourself to the other members.

New members introductions - New members Introduce yourselves

Welcome to the forum!

bd popeye super moderator and Grand Pubah

If China's goal in Korean War is to gain respect from the world, then someone ought to inform Mao not to cross the 38th parallel. Before China invaded South Korean, Britain, India, South East Asian and Middle Eastern countries were putting pressure on US to back off and recognize China's interest in Korea and Taiwan. After China invaded, everyone suddenly realized China is just as bad as North Korea and backed US tabled resolution that labeled China as aggressor. In the word of Bevin R. Alexander, China wants too much and ends up gets nothing, while a war that nobody wants would drag on for another two bloody year.

raider1001 said:

If China's goal in Korean War is to gain respect from the world, then someone ought to inform Mao not to cross the 38th parallel. Before China invaded South Korean, Britain, India, South East Asian and Middle Eastern countries were putting pressure on US to back off and recognize China's interest in Korea and Taiwan. After China invaded, everyone suddenly realized China is just as bad as North Korea and backed US tabled resolution that labeled China as aggressor. In the word of Bevin R. Alexander, China wants too much and ends up gets nothing, while a war that nobody wants would drag on for another two bloody year.

Click to expand...

Got any source for that? This is the first I've heard of this claim.

1) Alexander, Bevin R. (1986), Korea: The First War We Lost, New York, NY: Hippocrene Books, Inc, ISBN 9780870521355, pp. 375-376, pp. 387-388.
2) Farrar-Hockley, Anthony (1990), Official History: the British Part in the Korean War, Volume I, London, England: HMSO, ISBN 0116309539, Chapter 15: Tumult and Affright.

raider1001 said:

.......... After China invaded, everyone suddenly realized China is just as bad as North Korea and backed US tabled resolution that labeled China as aggressor. In the word of Bevin R. Alexander, China wants too much and ends up gets nothing, while a war that nobody wants would drag on for another two bloody year.

Click to expand...

Cool, I see we have someone who represents 'everyone' in our forum. Is that 'everyone' in the world or in the galaxy ?
As for respect, China certainly gain plenty of 'respect' from American soldiers. Of course finding one to admit it is another matter.

Of course the west would label China the aggressor, even though it was the US that intervened in the Korean civil war first in support of the puppet SK, talk about hypocrisy.
Who are the real aggressors? The foreigners who invaded and divided your country or those who seek to unite it and remove the invaders?

It is not about hypocrisy, it is about realpolitik. What does China trying to achieve by driving all non-aligned nations and European powers into American camp? May I remind people here that Britain, which happened to the "hypocritical" western power, explicitly stated to US that it is against more involvement in Asia (expanding the war by labeling China as aggressor), and that it will accept a status quo if China took the ceasefire offered by non-aligned nations on December 11, 1950 (the last option Britain offered is to defend South Korea if China did not accept ceasefire for the sake of honor). Explain this logic to me, since when does "winning respect" meaning giving more power to the enemy, or better yet, expand the war and pissing off all potential allies in UN when all of your troops in Korea is on the verge of starving to death? Official Chinese history really made me giggle by stating that invading South Korea had created a split between Britain and US when the exact opposite effect occurred.

Edit: Did China earned respect during the Korean War? Well, given the humiliation of the US Eighth Army at the Kunuri Gauntlet forced the UN to accept an audience with the Chinese envoy, made Britain to consider pulling out of Asia and the non-aligned nations trying to broke a peace deal between China and US, it definitely did earn respect from the international community. But after refusing to compromise with UN, forcing Britain to remain fighting in Korea while rejecting non-aligned countries' peace efforts, does China actually want respect? Well, it's really hard to tell...

It is not about hypocrisy, it is about realpolitik.

Click to expand...

But it is, these are not mutually exclusive terms.

What does China trying to achieve by driving all non-aligned nations and European powers into American camp?

Click to expand...

Which nations are they, did they suddenly become pro American because of Chinese actions in Korea? Real non-aligned nations don not support American involvement in creating puppet governments any more than that of the SU. China has gained support from those nations who do not wish to become servants to these super powers.

May I remind people here that Britain, which happened to the "hypocritical" western power, explicitly stated to US that it is against more involvement in Asia (expanding the war by labeling China as aggressor), and that it will accept a status quo if China took the ceasefire offered by non-aligned nations on December 11, 1950 (the last option Britain offered is to defend South Korea if China did not accept ceasefire for the sake of honor).

Click to expand...

Of course they would if they were afraid of Chinese involvement in the war, and they were probably concerned with a wider conflict with the SU. Its seems more like a desperate attempt to keep what they have conquered in Korea.

Explain this logic to me, since when does "winning respect" meaning giving more power to the enemy, or better yet, expand the war and pissing off all potential allies in UN when all of your troops in Korea is on the verge of starving to death?

Click to expand...

I never said "wining respect", it was about Chinese interests. And I did not know people on the verge of starvation can hold off American military and its allies.