Why did we not win the Korean War?

[Stark]

As America prepares to dismantle the regime of Saddam, I wonder if the goals of the US military have changed. In WWII, we conquered Germany and Japan and forced them to accept that they had indeed lost. By conquered, I mean we had soldiers drinking Hitler's campagne and living in SS apartments. We saw everything the Nazis were up to and put war criminals on trial.

For some reason we did not do this in Korea. I don't know much about that war, but it seems to me that our acceptance of a "draw" was the start of many problems which we are only now starting to reverse.

If we had kicked the crap out of korea and conquered the north, there would be no nuclear threat today. Vietnam may not have happened, and we certainly wouldn't have fought it in a half-hearted way. This continued until the Gulf War... fight until you reach a pre-determined military goal and then quit. We didn't conquer Iraq and now we have to send soldiers back in to finish the job. Had we done the job right the first time - had soldiers drinking Hussein's champagne and living in Republican Guard apartments, and tried war criminals for using chemicals to kill people - we could have avoided all this.

The Romans understood victory by conquest. The British did too. It looks like the US is finally starting to figure it out. Why did it take us so long?

 

[IamDavid]

NK had China. We could have kept fighting killing hundreds of thousands more people but why bother if there would be no end.. I think we did the right thing at the time..

 

[Grasshopper27]

I blame the liberals.

*dons flamesuit*

 

[shiner]

Why was Korea not a victory?

1. Truman wouldn't give McArthur free reign to do what he wanted/needed to be done.

2. It was a U.N. war. You think the U.N. bureaucracy is bad at making a political decision? Just transfer that same process to the battlefield and you'll see why Korea was a mess.

My Dad is a veteran of Korea and talking about it is one sure way to get him pissed.

 

[Queasy]

Well, McArthur had the North Koreans on the ropes early on and the US had all but won the Korean War. Unfortunately, he made a huge mistake by crossing the Korea/China border. This incensed China and they sent a flood of troops to assist the North Koreans. That almost lost the war for the U.S. In the end, a stalemate was all that was available.

 

[Stark]

so the UN made it a draw... and we're still trying to kiss the UN's butt today in going to war?

If we had beaten china in korea, would vietnam never have happened?

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Why was Korea not a victory?

1. Eisenhower wouldn't give McArthur free reign to do what he wanted/needed to be done.

2. It was a U.N. war. You think the U.N. bureaucracy is bad at making a political decision? Just transfer that same process to the battlefield and you'll see why Korea was a mess.

My Dad is a veteran of Korea and talking about it is one sure way to get him pissed.

You are of course dead on the money here...

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Well, McArthur had the North Koreans on the ropes early on and the US had all but won the Korean War. Unfortunately, he made a huge mistake by crossing the Korea/China border. This incensed China and they sent a flood of troops to assist the North Koreans. That almost lost the war for the U.S. In the end, a stalemate was all that was available.

That's pretty much the long and short of it.

 

[Peetoeng]

Originally posted by: Stark
As America prepares to dismantle the regime of Saddam, I wonder if the goals of the US military have changed. In WWII, we conquered Germany and Japan and forced them to accept that they had indeed lost. By conquered, I mean we had soldiers drinking Hitler's campagne and living in SS apartments. We saw everything the Nazis were up to and put war criminals on trial.

For some reason we did not do this in Korea. I don't know much about that war, but it seems to me that our acceptance of a "draw" was the start of many problems which we are only now starting to reverse.

If we had kicked the crap out of korea and conquered the north, there would be no nuclear threat today. Vietnam may not have happened, and we certainly wouldn't have fought it in a half-hearted way. This continued until the Gulf War... fight until you reach a pre-determined military goal and then quit. We didn't conquer Iraq and now we have to send soldiers back in to finish the job. Had we done the job right the first time - had soldiers drinking Hussein's champagne and living in Republican Guard apartments, and tried war criminals for using chemicals to kill people - we could have avoided all this.

The Romans understood victory by conquest. The British did too. It looks like the US is finally starting to figure it out. Why did it take us so long?

First, the Red Army. Second, try putting yourself as a foot soldier of an occupying army. Most small countries have mandatory military service (Singapore, Taiwan, Switzerland, etc); so, in case they get occupied, the invaders will pay hell to stay.

 

[gregshin]

mac never crossed teh NK/china border....he was about 70 miles from it....he also did not believe that china would intervene even tho he had intelligence repots otherwise...also they even captured some chinese soldiers before they even attacked.

 

[tcsenter]

A few hundred thousand forward Chinese troops + a few million more waiting in the wings made it a real tenuous situation. But yes the UN was running the show, not the US.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: gregshin
mac never crossed teh NK/china border....he was about 70 miles from it....he also did not believe that china would intervene even tho he had intelligence repots otherwise...also they even captured some chinese soldiers before they even attacked.

Hmm, I could have sworn I read that MacArthur had crossed the border. Maybe I'm not remembering it correctly and it read that China thought he was or something.

Anyways, you are correct about China. They were pretty much running the entire show for North Korea. Provided ground and air forces for them.

 

[Supermercado]

Originally posted by: gregshin
mac never crossed teh NK/china border....he was about 70 miles from it....he also did not believe that china would intervene even tho he had intelligence repots otherwise...also they even captured some chinese soldiers before they even attacked.

I don't know my history well enough to say whether or not MacArthur crossed the North Korea/China border, but we were talking about Korea just the other day in my history class and the teacher said that the UN (or maybe just United States, I can't remember) troops had Thanksgiving dinner of that year on the banks of the river that forms the border between North Korea and China. Like I said, I don't know if they actually crossed the river, but according to my teacher, they might as well have been on the border.

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Why was Korea not a victory?

1. Eisenhower wouldn't give McArthur free reign to do what he wanted/needed to be done.

2. It was a U.N. war. You think the U.N. bureaucracy is bad at making a political decision? Just transfer that same process to the battlefield and you'll see why Korea was a mess.

My Dad is a veteran of Korea and talking about it is one sure way to get him pissed.

Hear Hear.

I learned my love of the UN from my father. Its rough for him watching current events.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Why was Korea not a victory?

1. Eisenhower wouldn't give McArthur free reign to do what he wanted/needed to be done.

2. It was a U.N. war. You think the U.N. bureaucracy is bad at making a political decision? Just transfer that same process to the battlefield and you'll see why Korea was a mess.

My Dad is a veteran of Korea and talking about it is one sure way to get him pissed.

MaCarthur wanted to push all the way to the chinese border and then nuke the border. Not the most diplomatic thing to do, but he was not a diplomat. Generals are not supposed to be diplomats. Their job is to win a war that their country sees fit to fight. They will use all that is given to them to win it. It's probably a good thing that they didn't let McArthur use nuclear weapons though. If it became "normal" for countries to use them in wars it would be a problem.

 

[shiner]

Sorry...I should have said President Truman and not Eisenhower...doh! I edited my original post. Gotta love it when a history major screws up.

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: shinerburke
Why was Korea not a victory?

1. Eisenhower wouldn't give McArthur free reign to do what he wanted/needed to be done.

2. It was a U.N. war. You think the U.N. bureaucracy is bad at making a political decision? Just transfer that same process to the battlefield and you'll see why Korea was a mess.

My Dad is a veteran of Korea and talking about it is one sure way to get him pissed.

MacArthur was totally out of line, insubordinate bordering on treason. He failed to realize that the preisdent is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF and that had better do as he was told. Truman should have had him shot not just relieved. It was his blustering and threating of China with invasion and even the use of nuclear weapons that brought the Chinese over the river. Without that, we would have held on to our gains in the north. BTW, the UN was only the figurehead for the war.

The decisionmaking and running of the war was made by the US, not the UN. Blaming the UN for that course of that conflict is laughable. It was basically a conflict between the US and the Soviet Union at its core in the beginning, with China coming in after MacArthur threatened to invade and nuke them. It wouldn't have even been a UN war if the Soviets hadn't been stupidly boycotted the Security Council at the time of the invasion. It would have then been a US/NK/China/Soviet Union war in name and fact rather than being a UN war in name and a US war in fact.

MacArthur was a brilliant general as is shown by the assault on Inchon which turned the war around, but he was alos egotistical, dictatorial, insubordinate, mutinous, and totally lacking of common sense in a lot of ways. His actions threatened the absolute loyalty of the military to the civillian leadership in the US. He was a threat to the republic and the constitution not to mention world peace and he was lucky he was able to resign honorably.

 

[Kadarin]

I wasn't there and am not an expert on the Korean War, but one thing that always irritated me was that given the fact that China entered the war by directly attacking US (UN) troops from across the Yalu river, why did we never take out the bases in China from which the MiG 15's were launched (to regain air supremacy, which was taken from us when the MiG 15's entered the war).

One lesson that I certainly hope the US has learned and learned well from both Korea and Vietnam is that you DO NOT let politicians micromanage a war. You fight to win. Then again, it helps when you no longer have to pussyfoot around in order to avoid a Soviet nuclear first strike.

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
I wasn't there and am not an expert on the Korean War, but one thing that always irritated me was that given the fact that China entered the war by directly attacking US (UN) troops from across the Yalu river, why did we never take out the bases in China from which the MiG 15's were launched (to regain air supremacy, which was taken from us when the MiG 15's entered the war).

One lesson that I certainly hope the US has learned and learned well from both Korea and Vietnam is that you DO NOT let politicians micromanage a war. You fight to win. Then again, it helps when you no longer have to pussyfoot around in order to avoid a Soviet nuclear first strike.

The problem is attacking China directly could have led to a nuclear war. It's not pussyfooting, it is self preservation. It should never have come to that. MacArthur should have followed his instructions and shut his mouth. We had defeated the NK and were in control of the penninsula until he provoked the Chinese into coming across the river. Again, he was luck he wasn't shot. Insubordination on that level must be answered, what he did was close to mutiny. He freaking left the president of the United States waiting after he forced the president to come see HIM.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Stark
As America prepares to dismantle the regime of Saddam, I wonder if the goals of the US military have changed. In WWII, we conquered Germany and Japan and forced them to accept that they had indeed lost. By conquered, I mean we had soldiers drinking Hitler's campagne and living in SS apartments. We saw everything the Nazis were up to and put war criminals on trial.

For some reason we did not do this in Korea. I don't know much about that war, but it seems to me that our acceptance of a "draw" was the start of many problems which we are only now starting to reverse.

If we had kicked the crap out of korea and conquered the north, there would be no nuclear threat today. Vietnam may not have happened, and we certainly wouldn't have fought it in a half-hearted way. This continued until the Gulf War... fight until you reach a pre-determined military goal and then quit. We didn't conquer Iraq and now we have to send soldiers back in to finish the job. Had we done the job right the first time - had soldiers drinking Hussein's champagne and living in Republican Guard apartments, and tried war criminals for using chemicals to kill people - we could have avoided all this.

The Romans understood victory by conquest. The British did too. It looks like the US is finally starting to figure it out. Why did it take us so long?

If i remember any history at all, i seem to remember that MacArther (sp?) wanted to take all of north Korea and invade China, It was Truman that didn't want to. there was even talk that Truman was Jealous of MacArthers popularity in the US and that jealousy influneced his decision to hold MacArther back.

 

[Nitemare]

Kind of hard to fight a war when you are handcuffed and everyone back home is calling you a baby killer. That and all your enemies and allies looked alike, the enemy was using children as soldiers, the media was snapping up pictures of us killing the children with weapons and we were portrayed as evil by the liberal media...

Wish they would have got Hanoi Jane while she was over there in Asia. *





*Vietnam not Korean

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Kind of hard to fight a war when you are handcuffed and everyone back home is calling you a baby killer. That and all your enemies and allies looked alike, the enemy was using children as soldiers, the media was snapping up pictures of us killing the children with weapons and we were portrayed as evil by the liberal media...

Wish they would have got Hanoi Jane while she was over there.

Ummm. We are talking about the Korean war, not Vietnam. Thier is a difference.

 

[WoofyJr]

Originally posted by: Stark
so the UN made it a draw... and we're still trying to kiss the UN's butt today in going to war?

If we had beaten china in korea, would vietnam never have happened?

How did we get involved with Vietnam war? remind me please? I m trying to understand why you said that... I know china had nothing to do with vietnman war.

 

[justint]

Originally posted by: Stark
so the UN made it a draw... and we're still trying to kiss the UN's butt today in going to war?

If we had beaten china in korea, would vietnam never have happened?

How exactly did the UN make it a draw?? I though it was hundreds of thousands of Chinese and Soviet Nuclear weapons that made it a draw. How is that the UN's fault, particulalry as it was the US that was in charge of the war.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: justint

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Kind of hard to fight a war when you are handcuffed and everyone back home is calling you a baby killer. That and all your enemies and allies looked alike, the enemy was using children as soldiers, the media was snapping up pictures of us killing the children with weapons and we were portrayed as evil by the liberal media...

Wish they would have got Hanoi Jane while she was over there.

Ummm. We are talking about the Korean war, not Vietnam. Thier is a difference.

A traitor is a traitor, makes no difference the war...technically there was no Korean War, it was a Korean Conflict