Author Topic: Why would we help? (Read 1403 times)

Gunthr · « **Reply #30 on:** July 29, 2005, 07:34:22 AM »

I think they must be pretty hungry over there...

http://www.robpongi.com/pages/comboPOTATOPRIDE.html

Simaril · « **Reply #31 on:** July 29, 2005, 11:01:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
read about the "frozen chosin" sometime.

EDIT:

You responded after I posted but I hardly think the chinese stopped the Marines at the Chosin. THis is a huge part of Marine Corps history when Chesty puller bloodied the nose of an army that was nearly 12 times his size. Grunts and cooks alike were fighting with dropped army equipment because they couldnt be resupplied. Walking wounded were joining the line. The Marines were fighting on all sides yet the situation was at hand.

I hardly feel them boys were stopped in any way.....even if they were it took an army 10 times there size to do so.

My biggest question through all of this is why didn't the US go to war with China if we were fighting her troops in Korea?

I think we're talking about semantic differences. There's no doubt that the US forces fought better, more efficiently, and more lethally than the CCF. In that sense, they weren't beaten by any means.

However, in terms of overall battlefield outcomes, the Chinese hordes took the ground. The Marines fought brilliantly, and I wouldnt call them defeated at Chosin -- except in the battle field sense of who held the ground at the end of the day.

And that's the sense that I think the US would have had troubel winning the Korean War. With supply lines short for us and long for them, we knocked them around. If we tried to penetrate into NK -- with its poor infrastructure -- our higher tech forces would have suffered disproportionately to the CHines, whose troops had less, needed less, and would have had progressively shorter supply distances.

MacArthur ordered his men to move broadly, pell-mell to the NK/China border without attending to basics like flank protection, interlocking coverage, and lines of retreat. Despite clear rumblings of PRC concern, and clear indications of possible intervention, MacArthur acted based on what he THOUGHT his enemy would do rather than what his enemy WAS CAPABLE of doing. There are few principles of command more basic than that -- and he failed by that measure (jsut as he did in the Phillipines.)His troop management and disposition let the PRC drive us backwards; if he advanced into NK with enemy capabilities in mind, the border would now be in a different place.

And hang -- what is it with you?
"Whitewash?"
"Dodgeball?"
"Ignorance?"
Ad hominem attacks generally are the mark of intellectual poverty, dude. Take a look at Toad's and Gunslinger's posts to see how discussion's supposed to happen...

Toad · « **Reply #32 on:** July 29, 2005, 11:06:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Simaril
if he advanced into NK with enemy capabilities in mind, the border would now be in a different place.

I doubt it. Van Fleet was more than 10 miles North of the 38th when ordered to halt offensive operations. Van Fleet felt he could have advanced further too. Note that after the truce, the dividing line was still the 38th.

Was it Mac's misunderstanding of enemy capabilities or Mac's misunderstanding of Washington's support? There's evidence that Mac thought he was in a "total war" with Washington's full support, which obviously was not the case.

Simaril · « **Reply #33 on:** July 29, 2005, 11:14:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
I doubt it. Van Fleet was more than 10 miles North of the 38th when ordered to halt offensive operations. Van Fleet felt he could have advanced further too. Note that after the truce, the dividing line was still the 38th.

Was it Mac's misunderstanding of enemy capabilities or Mac's misunderstanding of Washington's support? There's evidence that Mac thought he was in a "total war" with Washington's full support, which obviously was not the case.

Yeah, after the lines had "stabilized" not much was going to change. I'm not sure about the total war idea -- I'm sure Mac wanted total war, being an old far east hand with a soft spot for the NAtionalists, but I dont know that anybody told him to expect that. And total war or not, those troop lines during the advance were pretty vulnerable reagrdless of the degree of political committment.

I was thinking that if the advancing US forces after the brilliant amphibious landing (kudos to Mac there!) had been mutaully supporting instead of strung out without regard to flanks, the stabilized lines would be farther north than they are. The horde might have been blunted and weathered without the rapid initial southward moves.

WHoo knows...

Hangtime · « **Reply #34 on:** July 29, 2005, 11:51:58 AM »

LOL!

"semantics"

ROFL!

Toad · « **Reply #35 on:** July 29, 2005, 12:12:15 PM »

Van Fleet didn't want to "stabilize" the lines when he was at line Wyoming. His position was that it was time to drive the enemy all the way to the Yalu and he thought he could do it. He was restrained by Washinton through Ridgway.

My comment with regard to total war is that I think Mac felt he would be given complete support and all necessary weapons/tactics. For example, I think he was very suprised when he was denied permission to have fighters pursue MiGs across the Yalu. He knew what needed to be done to win and he was a guy that believed there was "no substitute for victory". MacArthur had the agreement of President Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take over the whole of North Korea. However, they did not agree to his suggestions of bombing China, including use of the atomic bomb.

Karnak · « **Reply #36 on:** July 29, 2005, 12:29:56 PM »

As I understand it, the reason we couldn't really use nukes, or even take out NK was the USSR. Stalin was still a force to be recond with and they did have the bomb as well. Further, going after China too would likely have drawn the very potent Red Army into it on the side of China and NK.

We'd have been looking at the possibility of WWIII a mere decade after finishing WWII.

Simaril · « **Reply #37 on:** July 29, 2005, 01:54:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
LOL!

"semantics"

ROFL!

Try reading more than one word, and the discussion might make some sense to you hang...

Quote

Originially posted by Simaril
I think we're talking about semantic differences. There's no doubt that the US forces fought better, more efficiently, and more lethally than the CCF. In that sense, they weren't beaten by any means.

However, in terms of overall battlefield outcomes, the Chinese hordes took the ground.

Again I ask, what is it with you? We're talking about history, and you're stuck at the "I'll make fun of you" level?

Hangtime · « **Reply #38 on:** July 29, 2005, 02:36:46 PM »

In the interest of keeping it 'civil' I deleted before posting the usual line by line debunking of both your comments on the korean war as well as your usual whitewash dodge when called to the facts by Toad & Guns.

However that one word.. 'semantics' with regards to the cold hard historical facts struck me as funny... and noteworthy as such.

Now, had you just said "I was unaware of those facts, and in that light my previous understanding of the Korean Conflict was in error.." possibly I woulda gone a different route. Instead you chose to slap on some more whitewash yet again and then yah whipped out yer trusty 'semantics' dodge.

Still, I shoulda let it all slide.. hell; any time I get to watch pompus postulations not tied to credible data with your moniker above it gettin shot down in flames is a good one for me... especially when other posters get it done better (and far more politely) than I can.

So, I apologise for the gloating goad further up thread. It was wrong and small minded of me. Really, I should know better. I'll reflect on this when I cash my intellectual bankruptcy welfare check. (from commentary you editied out of your previous post)

And on that note.. ta ta!

Simaril · « **Reply #39 on:** July 29, 2005, 02:59:23 PM »

I gotta confess, I'm a little confused, Hang -- I jsut dont see the whitewash you're complaining about. I was thinking in terms of ground covered, as I said. There isnt any other way to look at the "cold historical facts" and deny that the Chinese took ground back from MacArthur, or there simply wouldnt be any NK today. In that sense, he was stopped.

Toad et al are correct in that the US forces killed more enemy and were per man more effective.

The "what if" questions are not clear cut; committed US political will vs. CCF incessant human waves is a topic for alternative history, and an interesting one.

So I'm wondering where the pompous postulations not tied to data come in...

To be honest, I still see nothing but ad hominem mockery from you, completely avoiding the actual discussion while you pretend to be more informed...

Simaril · « **Reply #40 on:** July 30, 2005, 02:59:45 PM »

I've thought about what you guys have said, and after re-reading my posts I guess I can see where Hang is coming from. At the time of my original admittedly flip comment I honestly only had the time of the Chinese incursion in mind, not at all thinking about later in the war. In terms of what I had in mind, the statement was reasonable -- and I stand by the idea that the ChiCom "stopped " US forces at that time. One doesn't "sacrifice" divisions if one isnt being "stopped" after all....

What I wrote didnt make that mindset at all clear, and I can see where hang thought my clarification was dodging. I know it wasnt, because I know what I had in mind at the time -- but I could see where he got the idea. He chose to assume I was lying, "whitewashing," or whatever, and I guess that's his perogative.

My reading on the late war has honestly been limited to the Pork Chop Hill battle. I can see that grinding test of wills woudl have been different if political considerations allowed US forces to go after the bases of attack; without that ability the story too often degenerates into "hide in our bunkers and call artillery down on our own positions."

As Hang suggested, I'll freely admit that I wasnt aware of the late war "red headed stepchild" phase.

If I'm ever pompous or arrogant on these boards, call me on it -- it is never my intent. I learn a lot here, and I come in contact with people and ideas that I never would otherwise. (I'm in a smaller town and dotn really know wny local aviation or military history buffs.) Course, it's all a lot more enjoyable when it stays civil and respectful.