Korean war General discussion

[Zachowon]

So reading about the Korean war on my train ride, I have to say, the air bombing campaign was worse then all of World war 2 combined

As well as the War in general was one of the last Force on Force wars the US ever had, and was a precedent for future war planning.

How does everyone feel, want to pitch in and just general info

 

[Knowledgeispower]

If only China had had bit more chaos from the Chinese civil war ending just a year before they decided to help North Korea and thus didn't join the war. It would have saved millions of people from the fate of living under the Kim Dynasty and moreover a lot less people would have died in the war

 

[Zachowon]

If only China had had bit more chaos from the Chinese civil war ending just a year before they decided to help North Korea and thus didn't join the war. It would have saved millions of people from the fate of living under the Kim Dynasty and moreover a lot less people would have died in the war

Some people say it has more casualties then the wars before it, as in more then USSR during World war 2, and more then the Chinese civil war.

A lot of civilians died

 

[Yinko]

The Korean War is the forgotten war in US history, smashed between the popular WW2 and the unpopular Vietnam War. It was one of the more brutal ones though.

Bodo League massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Truth and Reconciliation Commission (South Korea) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

On both sides the Koreans were wiping people out, and North Korean propaganda about the time period has a grain of truth to it, as US troops did do some pretty sick stuff at times.

In terms of strategy, it would have been difficult to do better. The ideal method would have been to use the water on either side of the peninsula to control the field of battle by being able to hit basically wherever you want. Except on one side you have China and the other the USSR, so that wouldn't work.

It is possible that if the US had gone to war with China, fully invaded it as a response to their involvement in the Korean conflict, that the USSR would have stayed out of it. Stalin and Mao had a really bad relationship, which started when Mao visited Moscow in '49, the war started in '50. The Communist Revolution only ended in '49 as well, so it would have been a pretty effective interventionist strategy since the Communist government would have had little time to consolidate nor recruit.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Invasion of China would have been a blunder of biblical proportions, USA barely scraped together enough forces for war in Korea and China only used fraction of it's force, while break with USSR is yet to happen, so China would be well supplied. USA simply wasn't ready for WWII level of commitment, just five years after WWII.
I guess too many people still believe MacArthur's bullshit.

 

[Yinko]

I guess too many people still believe MacArthur's bullshit.

I had never heard that he had proposed that. I was just spitballing ideas. As I said, any invasion of China would have been dependant on the USSR not be involved. If, as you say, the split happened later on, then obviously it would have been impossible.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I like the Korean War for much the same reason I like reading about the Italian Front I. WW2. It was pretty epic having such a broad coslition from around the world fighting on the same side against totalitarianism.

Almost like those video game climatic battles where you manage to bring all of the disparate allies together.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Invading China-a country that had been in a state of civil war, recently invaded, and was filled with men with military experience-even if that was merely armed banditry, would have been disastrous.

 

[Zachowon]

We should have nuked them. Only way

 

[PsihoKekec]

And then in 1967 USSR nukes Israel and in 1979 Pakistan, as USA makes nuclear holocaust a normal military tactic.

 

[Zachowon]

China did not have nukes, so that is why they were thinking of uisng it if China got invovled in the war

 

[PsihoKekec]

But it would remove the taboo of nuclear weapons usage, so once the USSR had nukes it would be encouraged to use them to show parity with USA, which most likely means several nukes on Israel in 1967 or 1973.

 

[Zachowon]

But it would remove the taboo of nuclear weapons usage, so once the USSR had nukes it would be encouraged to use them to show parity with USA, which most likely means several nukes on Israel in 1967 or 1973.

They had few nukes if more then one, and would show the US was no afraid to use them on Russia

 

[Atarlost]

But it would remove the taboo of nuclear weapons usage, so once the USSR had nukes it would be encouraged to use them to show parity with USA, which most likely means several nukes on Israel in 1967 or 1973.

We should have nuked the USSR as quickly as we could make them until they surrendered all of eastern Europe and handed over anyone still alive who had been in party leadership when they invaded Poland for war crimes trials. Probably this should have taken priority over using them on Japan, which as a resource poor island that had effectively lost its navy could be contained.

 

[PsihoKekec]

You do realize that USA and USSR were allies at the time? And takeover of Eastern Europe was agreed upon at Yalta conference. I would love to see Truman try to explain to American public why he decided to incinerate the allies, that American propaganda had been lionizing for the last four years and not the guys who did the Pearl Harbor.
It would be an interesting alternate timeline, where USA is the tyrant of the world, using it's sole mastery of the nuclear fire to prevent rise of any kind of competition and especially to prevent anybody from developing the nuclear weapons of their own.

 

[Lanmandragon]

You do realize that USA and USSR were allies at the time? And takeover of Eastern Europe was agreed upon at Yalta conference. I would love to see Truman try to explain to American public why he decided to incinerate the allies, that American propaganda had been lionizing for the last four years and not the guys who did the Pearl Harbor.
It would be an interesting alternate timeline, where USA is the tyrant of the world, using it's sole mastery of the nuclear fire to prevent rise of any kind of competition and especially to prevent anybody from developing the nuclear weapons of their own.

Your correct on the pr issues it would've never flown. That being said breaking the USSR was no more tyranical. Then breaking the Nazis or Japs were. Allowing the survival of the USSR was both foolish and immoral. Patton and Churchill had the right idea even if it wasn't a popular one. We shouldn't have stopped until Moscow fell. Should've killed off Mao and his cronies in the 40s to.

 

[Husky_Khan]

A 1945 War between the Soviet Bloc and the West is probably worth its own thread I would imagine.