Korean War - PART 22, Bombing of North Korea, 6.25 전쟁

[hektor74]

give me prisoners... not teritory

[troytblevins]

you dont win wars by bombing empty fields,you bomb citys and towns,you have to hurt the enemy.

[mlovmo]

@troytblevins Okay. Thanks for your opinion. I think many people out there agree with your opinion. As long as people in the USA are comfortable having their Air Force bomb cities (where mothers and children live) and are FULLY AWARE that non-combatants WILL die, then I guess we get what we ask for. What I don't like are spokespeople for the Air Force coming on CNN and talking about how "surgical" their bombing is, trying to make people think that 'technology' will keep civilians from dying.

[neckronn99]

@mlovmo I forced myself to watch this segment. It made me sick. The US military was slow to learn what the historian is saying @ 7:04 about how aerial bombing is not effective at ending war production. This is distinct from air supremacy over the battlefield. The approach they have now, to strike infrastructure with smart weapons, is better, but not nearly as accurate as they think. But its better than carpet-bombing entire civilian neighborhoods.

[mlovmo]

@neckronn99 The policy of razing cities to the ground was a tactic that been carried over from the last war the USA had fought, World War II. Nowadays, US airpower advocates talk about "surgery" with better aiming technology. If it's surgery, then why did the USAF use 4,000 lb. payloads to try to assassinate Saddam in 2003? If the USAF is so accurate, then why not just duct-tape a bayonet to a dummy bomb and aim it at Saddam's jugular vein? The problem is STILL knowing WHERE the target is!

[neckronn99]

@mlovmo I didn't say its accurate in every case, and yeah, probably they were using the biggest hammer they could find to try get Saddam and not worrying too much about collateral damage (i.e. civilians with really bad luck). I basically agreeing with you, bro, but the official philosophy has changed. From 1944 to 1973 it was "screw it, bomb everything in sight and we'll be sure to hit something" and God help the civilians. Even though its not really surgical, I'll take today's approach.

[Bournetolive]

I researched Tibor Meray - then I came upon allegations of biological warfare in the Korean War, made by PRC and DPRK against the US. Some really good reading on Wikipedia for that - an American journalist was even charged with sedition in the US over this! Gosh, I guess nobody is perfect.

[Bournetolive]

Also, I think you underestimate the power that Chinese public opinion have on leadership - the latter may have the final say, but they know that the people, with all the trappings of modern technology and access to outside information despite attempts to restrict its flow, do have the capacity to throw them out of power if they cause massive suffering or even, retard growth; thus, it is not just exterior considerations, it is also internal as well

[joshuaoha]

"This segment of the bombing was excised from the version shown in the US"

[rw5791]

macarthur would have used tactical nukes the moment the chicoms crossed the yalu river but he was restrained because jew spies at los alamos had delivered the secrets of the atom bomb to soviet agents.

[Bournetolive]

@rw5791

The nuke is too terrible a weapon for just one side to hold - it must be held by all major powers so that they can keep each other in check - otherwise, the result will be terrible, nuclear wars that will not only kill hundreds of millions, but also even render earth uninhabitable.

Confucius thought that humans are inherently good and peaceful. Even as a Chinese, I have to say he was wrong. That is why if there is a horrible weapon, all sides must hold it.

[Kevoko]

@demarch77 why you bastard think that everyone and all countries over the world should obey shit america why why why..If the people in their own countries it is their problem to solve the problems and find the solutions okay you bastards..

[crackerstj]

Just a point of interest - The US did not lose the Korean War it was a stale mate hence why there is still the 38th Parallel.

[mlovmo]

@crackerstj

It depends on what criteria of "victory" that the US was using, as the Americans had a constantly changing definition of "victory" to suit their needs:

1) In the late 40s, "victory" was "Let's set up a govt here and get the hell out"

2) With the NK attack in 1950, it was "Well, let's just keep this thing alive and retreat to Jeju Island or Japan, if necessary"

3) Then "victory" was considered as the knocking out of the NK regime and holding the line at the Yalu (Amnok) River

cont...

[mlovmo]

@crackerstj

4) AND THEN with the Chinese intervention, it would have been "victory" enough just to go back to Number 2.

5) Finally, with full confidence that the Chinese could not kick them out of Korea totally, the USA went back to the status-quo ante of holding the line at the 38th Parallel, and considering THAT victory.

So, as an American, YES, you can call the Korean War a victory. All one has to do is keep changing the definition(!)

Sounds like Afghanistan, huh?

[crackerstj]

@mlovmo Very interesting observation - I suppose under those terms Vietnam could be called a victory as well.

[mlovmo]

@crackerstj

Precisely. The Nixon administration pretty much said that the USA had achieved its goals in Vietnam at the moment of the signing of the Paris peace treaty between Le Duc Tho and Kissinger. I guess you could call it victory if you follow that definition! The fact that Le Duc Tho refused his Nobel peace prize, as the Vietnamese (North nor South) had no intention of abiding by the peace. Clearly, it was just a bone to throw to the USA so that they could justify leaving.

[edinscot56789]

Bombing does not work for defeating an enemy force. The US were defeated in both Korea and Vietnam because they believed bombing alone can defeat an enemy army, but this is absolute crap. Bombing is only good for killing a shit load of innocent people. For nothing.

[number0017]

@edinscot56789 it does work well the only huge drawback like you said killing innocent people

[TheShinema]

@edinscot56789 bombing was useful to take out a mass of troops...much like WWII...however the bombings occured in WWII seemed to focus on factories and enemy forts...this however didn't really do that...they tried bombing villages and factories that were out of operation...I mean during that period...Korea was compared to a African country...as they could only produce bikes...

[edinscot56789]

@TheShinema yeah, but bombing was so inaccurate and ineffectual in WWII, they got within 20 miles of their intended target perhaps 1 in 5 times? Making it very expensive and wasteful of lives and resources, considering about 50% of all aircrews were cut down by the Luftwaffe or anti-aircraft guns. In Korea, fair enough minimal casualties for your side, but it was still extremely expensive and wasteful in terms of resources, because there was no real way of telling if you hit anything. Often not.

[Hperman09]

@edinscot56789 No Korean war was a statemate meaning a ceasefire agreement. We did not win nor lose. now NK has not only for shooting SK and US troops for 60 years even since.

[DiegoHarmon]

Wow i didnt know Ike was like this !

[jinshiksung]

How do they bomb north korea after Mig 15

They can not even day bombing

[matsuyama88]

On ７:35 at the way left is my grandfather.

Wow.. Thank you..

[mlovmo]

Hmm...I'm not sure what the mechanism of communist propaganda has to do with the whole issue of blame in civil wars. WHat I was trying to say here is that perhaps assigning blame to one side or another in a civil war is not such a healthy exercise. Think of Korea. It is known that BOTH sides wanted to go to war to take over the whole of Korea. I happened to be that the North was in the position to do so in 1950. Does blaming the North, today, help in reconciliation between the two sides?

[OlenkaWagner]

It is difficult to talk about reconciliation of two parts of a country when one of them is ruled by a totalitarian dictator. How can you imagine reconciliation? Establishing friendly relationships with the dictator? Allowing him to put people in prison, torture and kill them?

And I think it is important to remind who started the war and why, because otherwise some actions would not be understood and a false image would be created.

[mlovmo]

Of course it's difficult. However it DOES happen. The Cultural Revolution in China only really ended when both sides engaged and reconciled (now we have a multi-trillion dollar trade deficit with them). Also, it seems that you think that reconciliation is a zero-sum game: Either we never reconcile, or we grovel before a dictator(!) Reconciliation does NOT have to mean giving up our ideals. It is also based on OUR conditions. Somehow we can get along with the PRC, but not the DPRK. Huh?

[OlenkaWagner]

I think maybe it was a mistake with China. China opened to the world, but demanded partners to accept their anti-democratic system. The effect is making compromise with the evil. Some benefits might come out of this, but this is the way of legitimizing an opressive government. Finally it can turn against the free world. Anyway, I don't think DPRK's dictator would like any opening, even for the sake of legitimization his government.

[mlovmo]

We have been legitimizing "oppressive governments" for many years (South Korea under the military regimes, Philippines under the Marcoses, etc). Yes, there is a problem with it, of course. We now recognize the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and have exchanged embassies with them and Russia (not exactly a bastion of liberty) and others. But those who have advocated staying engaged and reconciling with such countries in the past still say the same thing about doing it now: The point is to

[mlovmo]

engage so that we can (among other things) affect change within these countries that results in better human rights and liberties for the people there. China doesn't feel so free now to starve millions of people to death or engage in pogroms to punish certain classes of people anymore. Now they are a little more careful perhaps in doing such things. Isn't that worth it in and of itself? By engaging, we save lives. Keeping on trying with the DPRK is not such a bad idea, in my opinion.

[Bournetolive]

@OlenkaWagner

If things are so oppressive as you mentioned, why does the PRC government have a 87% approval rating? Why haven't there been a large, armed rebellion? If an insurgency starts in China against the government, and if it is really popular, Beijing would find it impossible to put it down. Why hasn't it happened? Instead, in 2008, the Olympics were held in China, and despite all the controversy, in the end, they were regarded overall as a success. Don't be a sheeple - ask questions!

[mlovmo]

Interesting take on history. Think: does anyone in Vietnam care about who "started" the war civil war there? I doubt it. Perhaps some Americans and some Vietnamese-Americans who live in Little Saigon communities in the USA do, but I don't think that too many people in modern-day Vietnam really concern themselves with the question. To them (regardless of what side they fought on), the war was inevitable and yet caused far too much death and suffering...

[freedomaintfries]

It isn't possible to definitively blame 3 million deaths squarely on Kim Il Sung alone. Certainly he and his Chinese allies are responsible for an awful lot of aggression, death and destruction resulting from the war. But if MacArthur and Rhee had not provocatively driven their troops past the 38th parallel in 1950, would the Chinese still have counterattacked, thus prolonging the war and massively driving up the casulaty count? One can't know for sure but the UN's aggression can't be ignored

[willminkorea]

The North refused free elections before the war and the North started the war. Now, the North uses genocide against its own people- especially Christians. Is there any doubt who is responsible for the war and rumors of war in Korea?

[mlovmo]

"Oh by the way North Korea started the war."

...It's funny: Nobody ever says, "Oh, by the way the North/South started the American Civil War!, or the North/South started the Vietnam War!

Why is the fact that North Korea attacked the South on June 25th so important for the Korean War, but it isn't really so important for us who started the US Civil War or Vietnam War?

[mlovmo]

All very well said...yes, as this episode states, Kim Il Sung callously partied in safety while his people were subjected to the bombing. Also true it the fact that he was the "prime mover" of an attack on the South. This refutes the decades-long allegation that the attack was a "plot hatched in Moscow". For some, this allegation still stands, and you can still see it in recently-published histories on the war.