The Korean War and Vietnam in Hindsight

[Puppycow]

In hindsight, given what a human tragedy as well as security threat North Korea has been for decades, it seems like we should have fought the war until it was finished, if victory was possible. However, I don't know how much more it would have taken to win the war. I shudder to think about what might have happened if we hadn't intervened and the North had taken over the whole peninsula.

On the other hand, Vietnam has not been much of a security threat since we left, and today you can visit there and talk with the locals and it seems to be evolving into a comparatively benign country (compared to North Korea). This suggests to me that we should have gotten out a lot sooner. Besides, there is no longer any South/North divide in Vietnam like in Korea.

I'm not sure what lessons we can learn from this other than that we can't really know what the long-term consequences will be when we end an overseas war.

 

[lionking]

Good point, but without looking it up, wouldn't trying to "finish" the Korean War have brought China more directly into the combat?

 

[Fiona]

Serious question. What is it about these countries that makes you think it was justified to launch a war in the first place? What were you fighting for ?

 

[lionking]

It made "sense" in the 1950s and 1960s to "stop the spread of communism". The First World War didn't make sense either, and you can say the same for a great many wars.

 

[Puppycow]

Serious question. What is it about these countries that makes you think it was justified to launch a war in the first place? What were you fighting for ?

IIRC, we did not "launch" a war in either country. North Korea invaded South Korea. I think that history is pretty clear that the North was the aggressor.

In Vietnam, the government of South Vietnam was fighting a counterinsurgency against rebels. I don't think our involvement there was justified. This judgment is based on information that wasn't known at the time, that is, hindsight.

 

[TX50]

Good point, but without looking it up, wouldn't trying to "finish" the Korean War have brought China more directly into the combat?

China had approx 2.3 million military personnel deployed in the 1950-53 Korean war.
Do you perhaps mean the USSR?

 

[TX50]

IIRC, we did not "launch" a war in either country. North Korea invaded South Korea. I think that history is pretty clear that the North was the aggressor.

Yes, presumably by "we" (and "you" in the original question) is meant the
USA. But the Korean war wasn't actually authorized by the US congress.
Truman acted in support of a UN resolution.

 

[lionking]

China had approx 2.3 million military personnel deployed in the 1950-53 Korean war.
Do you perhaps mean the USSR?

I shouldn't rely on memory . I guess my point is that trying to "win" the Korean war (which I believe is still officially happening, DMZ etc) would have led to a very serious escalation.

 

[Autolite]

It made "sense" in the 1950s and 1960s to "stop the spread of communism". The First World War didn't make sense either, and you can say the same for a great many wars.

Actually, there's the "Complete Idiots Guide to the Vietman War" that gave me a new perspective. Some of the reasons for America's involvement in Vietman go back at least as far as WWI and when you look at it from the viewpoint of a few generations ago I found that it did actually make "sense"... (of course the book's title might make the whole point moot).

http://www.amazon.ca/Complete-Idiot...9499/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1239883956&sr=1-3

 

[Giz]

It made "sense" in the 1950s and 1960s to "stop the spread of communism". The First World War didn't make sense either, and you can say the same for a great many wars.

Hmmm, I'd say that a good case could be made for British intervention in the first world war...

 

[theprestige]

Considering how people have fared everywhere communist regimes have gained power, and considering how agressively the Soviet Union and the PRC were promoting communist revolutions everywhere they could, I'm going to stay firmly on the side of "preventing the spread of communism is a good idea".

 

[dudalb]

I think there was a resolution approving Truman's action.
Truman did not have much choice, the military situation was deterioting so bad that he felt he had to act quickly.

 

[dudalb]

Serious question. What is it about these countries that makes you think it was justified to launch a war in the first place? What were you fighting for ?

North Korea invaded South Korea..a pretty blatent case of aggresion
We were fighting to stop communism. COnsdiering Communism's record, I think that was a good thing in Korea.
Vietnam was less strightforward.

 

[dudalb]

Considering how people have fared everywhere communist regimes have gained power, and considering how agressively the Soviet Union and the PRC were promoting communist revolutions everywhere they could, I'm going to stay firmly on the side of "preventing the spread of communism is a good idea".

One the things that makes me angry is that Communism..not the more Democratic forms of Socialism...is making something of a comeback. We have one guy here who is a die hard Communist, right down to the rhetoric. A sucker is born every minute, I guess.

 

[Lonewulf]

One the things that makes me angry is that Communism..not the more Democratic forms of Socialism...is making something of a comeback. We have one guy here who is a die hard Communist, right down to the rhetoric. A sucker is born every minute, I guess.

Contrary to popular opinion, Communism never died out, and communists didn't "disappear" within the past few decades.

Hey, welcome to the world of mass communication. People you don't hear about can actually talk to you now!

 

[ddt]

In Vietnam, the government of South Vietnam was fighting a counterinsurgency against rebels. I don't think our involvement there was justified. This judgment is based on information that wasn't known at the time, that is, hindsight.

Vietnam was less strightforward.

Quite. After Ho Chi Minh's forces had driven the French out, 1954, at the Geneva conference, the country was temporarily divided in two regions. Within two years, in both regions elections should have been held and the country reunited. There were elections in North Vietnam. The US backed dictatorship of Diem in the South did not hold elections.

It's quite clear how (un)justified the US' involvement in Vietnam was. The South Vietnamese regime had no legitimacy at all.

 

[dudalb]

I have to point out that North Vietnam was....and is... a dictatorshop. I don't find the legtimacy argument compelling.

 

[dudalb]

Contrary to popular opinion, Communism never died out, and communists didn't "disappear" within the past few decades.
!

Which is a sad commentary on the stupidity of the Human Race.
If anybody can point out why Communism in practice..forget the theoritical utopia....was much better then Nazism, please do so.
Both were ruthless totalrian systems which murdered millions. Communism just was better at PR, that's all.

 

[Simon39759]

Nazism did replace a (albeit short living) democracy. Communist regimes mostly replaced other authoritarian regimes and dictatorships. In fact, in several, maybe most cases; communism was associated with a relative improvement in the population's lot.
Conversely, in a few countries, the situation did not improve, or not much, after the fall of communism. Ex-Yugoslavia, is an obvious example but, even in Russia, many people did loose in quality of life after the fall of the USSR.

Finally, in contrast with Germany, the communist dictatorships had several generations to brainwash their subjects, it is not surprising for their hold on their former subjects to be stronger.

 

[Lonewulf]

Which is a sad commentary on the stupidity of the Human Race.
If anybody can point out why Communism in practice..forget the theoritical utopia....was much better then Nazism, please do so.
Both were ruthless totalrian systems which murdered millions. Communism just was better at PR, that's all.

Nazism didn't die out either. Neither did several versions of Christianity, including Catholicism. And in the meantime, we have Scientology and Mormonism making a rise.

ANd now you're talking about the stupidity of the Human Race?