dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 25, 2020 13:04:28 GMT -8
My favorite aunt was born that year. I have very fond memories of her as a pretty young woman who loved me and took good care of me when my Mom had to work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet as a single mother. She is turning 70 this August.
I owe a debt of gratitude to the United States for the ultimate sacrifices made by over 35,000 men. I have yet to read an American book on the Korean war, so I've added two to my queue
- In Mortal Combat: Korea, 1950-1953 by John Toland (his book on Hitler is excellent)
- This Kind of War by T. R. Fehrenbach
One question that has been swirling in my head concerns the 5 year period between the liberation of Korea from Japan and the war. I doubt the books will answer my question since they focus on the war itself, not the circumstances leading up to it, so here it is.
The governments of the Koreas were barely off the ground by the time the war broke out just five years after liberation from Japan. How did the populaces turn on each other so soon under the fledgling governments? Did the ideological divide cement itself in that short period of time even though western democracy and communism were new and foreign to most Koreans at the time?
When I was a kid in the 70's Korea, the war and Japanese colonial rule were covered in detail in school, but the period from 1945 to 1950 was sketchy at best. I know a bit of what went on on the south side of the border (US occupation, elections in 48, etc), but I am sure most of the world is still in the dark about what went on in the North. The DMZ at first was a nominal border, but as months and years went by, it became increasingly fortified which led my mother's side of the family to escape as they saw the writing on the wall.
There were cultural differences between the North and South, but not long standing animosity in this homogeneous country, so you can't draw a comparison to America's sectional divide which had simmered for generations before the civil war.
|
|
|
|
Post by TAMPATIDE on Jun 25, 2020 15:51:13 GMT -8
I love everything I've read by Toland
|
|
|
|
Post by blublood on Jun 25, 2020 15:53:10 GMT -8
My dad was a Navy medic in Korea, assigned to a seaplane tender. He was about to be sent on a seaplane mission to evacuate wounded. The plan was to land the seaplanes on the Chosin Reservoir. Yes, that reservoir. During that battle. The mission was cancelled when they realized the seaplanes would be landing on ice. But for the ice, I might not be here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Jun 25, 2020 16:36:12 GMT -8
I caught a little bit of CBC coverage on the anniversary. The gist was that, like in the U.S., it's the forgotten war and they should do more to honor the veterans.
Their commentator asserted that interest in South Korea in reuniting is waning. He implied that a slim majority would oppose it. Also, interesting was a Canadian guy saying "with huge powers the U.S. and China on opposite sides of the conflict, you would think that they'd have negotiated some kind of compromise long ago" noting that North and South are still technically at war. I think he over-estimates how much control the powers have over Korean leadership.
And, totally random aside - KUCI (UCI's radio station) used to have a dj that played patriotic North Korean (yes, North Korean) music. I listen to it 3 or 4 times, because I couldn't imagine anything more off the wall than that, and some of the music was kinda catchy (it was all military/marching music). Did you ever catch that show?
|
|
|
|
Post by northbruin40 on Jun 25, 2020 18:40:41 GMT -8
What's the general feeling about MacArthur in Korea? Is he viewed as a hero for Sept.-Nov. 1950 - or is he viewed as a guy that blew favorable circumstances for a decisive victory and resulted in the war dragging on 2.5 more years and ending in a stalemate?
|
|
dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 25, 2020 22:52:18 GMT -8
I caught a little bit of CBC coverage on the anniversary. The gist was that, like in the U.S., it's the forgotten war and they should do more to honor the veterans. Their commentator asserted that interest in South Korea in reuniting is waning. He implied that a slim majority would oppose it. Also, interesting was a Canadian guy saying "with huge powers the U.S. and China on opposite sides of the conflict, you would think that they'd have negotiated some kind of compromise long ago" noting that North and South are still technically at war. I think he over-estimates how much control the powers have over Korean leadership. And, totally random aside - KUCI (UCI's radio station) used to have a dj that played patriotic North Korean (yes, North Korean) music. I listen to it 3 or 4 times, because I couldn't imagine anything more off the wall than that, and some of the music was kinda catchy (it was all military/marching music). Did you ever catch that show? The radio show sounds just too wacky. It is understandable people's zeal for reunification has waned over the years. My mother's first cousin who left his siblings and mother behind in North Korea before the war is now in his mid 80's. Separated family members are dying out, and to younger generations, NK might as well be another foreign country. |
|
dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 25, 2020 22:55:59 GMT -8
What's the general feeling about MacArthur in Korea? Is he viewed as a hero for Sept.-Nov. 1950 - or is he viewed as a guy that blew favorable circumstances for a decisive victory and resulted in the war dragging on 2.5 more years and ending in a stalemate? I can only describe what it was like in the 70's. MacArthur was revered almost as a deity and Truman was seen as the villain who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. I was shocked to find that not everyone held MacArthur in high regard here. I thought he was on par with George Washington and Abraham Lincoln as an American hero. |
|
|
|
Post by grant73 on Jun 26, 2020 6:58:36 GMT -8
Thanks, dsc for the thread. Back around 2014 or so I saw this video purporting to be a N. Korean documentary on conditions in "America." At the time I wasn't sure whether it was that or whether it was a satirical (western-produced) entertainment piece. (I still do not know that answer. But it is fascinating even a half-decade later.) This is the one that has Pyongyang's Charity Mobile Soup Kitchen Trucks feeding the hapless Americans, who make their coffee out of dirty snow, and whose songbirds have all disappeared because of over-hunting by famine-starved Americans. (Scene shows two remnant birds in a tree, "These will be eaten by Tuesday.") Now, our homeless situation is pretty dreadful, but to anyone viewing this video, it seems like the rule, not the exception. (Who knew that the free North Korean coffee Pyonyang brings to America is even more "yoommy" than the usual hot snow?) It's just five minutes: |
|
|
|
Post by sagobob on Jun 26, 2020 12:03:29 GMT -8
What's the general feeling about MacArthur in Korea? Is he viewed as a hero for Sept.-Nov. 1950 - or is he viewed as a guy that blew favorable circumstances for a decisive victory and resulted in the war dragging on 2.5 more years and ending in a stalemate? MacArthur's landing at Inchon was a military masterstroke as it changed the course of the war (conflict actually). Then as the UN troops approached the North Korean-Chinese border, Chinese troops came pouring over and it all turned around. MacArthur had an ego the size of Alaska and had little use for the Man from Missouri. Truman had to replace him and he did. I still remember listening to his farewell speech before Congress..."old soldiers never die, they just fade away...…" Eventually MacArthur did too. PS this was written from memory only, so it could have some holes in it. |
|
dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 26, 2020 12:16:33 GMT -8
One thing I have always been curious. Why did China wait until the UN troops approached the border? If it was China's intention to keep NK propped up, you think the troops would have mobilized as soon as MacArthur's Inchon landing succeeded. Did MacArthur really intend to go to war with China?
|
|
DrJ
Contributing Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by DrJ on Jun 26, 2020 13:27:10 GMT -8
One thing I have always been curious. Why did China wait until the UN troops approached the border? If it was China's intention to keep NK propped up, you think the troops would have mobilized as soon as MacArthur's Inchon landing succeeded. Did MacArthur really intend to go to war with China? Because that is when China felt threatened and also when its supply lines were shortest. The Soviet Union also requested that they intervene to prop up Kim il Sung. MacArthur ignored intel (and warnings from China) that it would not tolerate a hostile border or troops north of the 38th parallel. MacArthur ignored all of it, dismissed the capabilities of the PLA, and spread his columns out to occupy the whole country. China had been moving troops into North Korea since the 38th Parallel was crossed and delivered a massive counterattack. David Halberstam’s “The Coldest Winter” is a pretty thorough read on the subject. |
|
|
|
Post by sagobob on Jun 26, 2020 13:51:36 GMT -8
One thing I have always been curious. Why did China wait until the UN troops approached the border? If it was China's intention to keep NK propped up, you think the troops would have mobilized as soon as MacArthur's Inchon landing succeeded. Did MacArthur really intend to go to war with China? Consider the timing and circumstances. China's supply lines were just across the border and we couldn't bomb them; ours were extended. It was in the middle of a bitter winter and it's possible that our air superiority was not effective. Besides China had thousands of soldiers willing or forced to take one for Chairman Mao. Those are more of my recollections. |
|
dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 26, 2020 15:57:53 GMT -8
Another thing that has perplexed me is this. Pretty much everyone who lived through the war has nothing but fond memories of US troops. My uncles and aunts had stories of playing near a US military base as kids. American troops gave them food and played ball with boys. Never heard stories of bad encounters. It couldn't because of censorship. Trust me. People had no trouble sharing bad experiences with the Korean government and police.
The most popular pet names were "Meh-ri" and "Chon." They are Korean variations of Mary and John respectively. Out of gratitude for American soldiers and relief workers, they named their pets after them. (And they ate them.)
Then what changed in the Vietnam war? Did the US military change the rules of engagement with civilians?
|
|
|
|
Post by blublood on Jun 26, 2020 16:52:25 GMT -8
This is pure speculation on my part. But it may be that the "front" was more clearly defined in the Korean War. Bases to the rear might have been relatively safe. In Vietnam, the front was never clear. It may be that in Vietnam, being near a U.S. base, any U.S. base, might have been hazardous. So, the U.S. military and the local civilians might have avoided mixing. You may know more about all that than I do.
Also, justification for our being in Vietnam was always dicey. The French colonialists decided to leave and our forces went in to replace them. So, whose side were we on? Well, the anti-communist side. But where were the locals on that? I saw an interview with one of the Vietnam principals (for the U.S., can't remember if it was McNamara, a general, or some NSC official) who said they got it totally wrong in Vietnam. They never understood that Ho Chi Minh wasn't Stalin; he was Tito. I thought that was a jaw-dropping confession.
|
|
|
|
Post by sagobob on Jun 26, 2020 19:26:43 GMT -8
This is pure speculation on my part. But it may be that the "front" was more clearly defined in the Korean War. Bases to the rear might have been relatively safe. In Vietnam, the front was never clear. It may be that in Vietnam, being near a U.S. base, any U.S. base, might have been hazardous. So, the U.S. military and the local civilians might have avoided mixing. You may know more about all that than I do. Also, justification for our being in Vietnam was always dicey. The French colonialists decided to leave and our forces went in to replace them. So, whose side were we on? Well, the anti-communist side. But where were the locals on that? I saw an interview with one of the Vietnam principals (for the U.S., can't remember if it was McNamara, a general, or some NSC official) who said they got it totally wrong in Vietnam. They never understood that Ho Chi Minh wasn't Stalin; he was Tito. I thought that was a jaw-dropping confession. IIRC The Domino Theory figured in our actions. If South Viet Nam fell to those Commies, so would the rest of SE Asia. We moved in when the French moved out. Kennedy started with "advisors" and gradually our intervention ramped up. There were no front lines as such in South Viet Nam, only skirmishes. Our fixed positions were firebases, which also served as springboards for "seek and destroy" missions. The war was fought on the enemy's terms, not ours. Their Tet Offensive pretty well finished us off. We won the battles, but lost the hearts and minds of the homeland. Early on one of Kennedy's generals advised him not to get involved in a land war in SE Asia. That advice was ignored. The consequences of that decision were profound and painful. |
|
