The Korean war

Re: Please help answer this question regarding the Korean War for me!

raider1001 said:

Depend on which stage of battle. Before mid 1951, South Korean forces were a rabble. After mid 1951, they can hold out on their own. In fact during the stalemate, most of the fighting were carried out by South Koreans in order to limit US casualties. US provided air support, but ground forces were all Korean.

One of the biggest fallacy in analyzing Korean War history is that people always ignore South Korean strength and casualties. South Koreans always formed half to two-third of all UN strength in Korea. You also have to remember that it is very rare for Chinese forces to engage US forces alone, and the Chinese strategy is always focused on destroying the South Koreans while encircling the US forces. Thus during any battle between Chinese and UN forces, it is always the South Koreans that suffered most of the losses while US forces retreat with low losses.

Click to expand...

Right. Most of the brief korean war reports I saw always mentioned Chinese and U.S. forces, and their casualty figures, making it seem like most of the war was fought by the U.S. only.

It was reported on B.O.N. that China recently released it's causality figures from the Korean War.



How accurate they are is a different story I think it's somewhere between what the American figures and the Chinese figures.

ABC78 said:

It was reported on B.O.N. that China recently released it's causality figures from the Korean War.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

How accurate they are is a different story I think it's somewhere between what the American figures and the Chinese figures.

Click to expand...

Technically speaking, both sides numbers are unreliable. UN estimates are just estimates, i.e. guessing game filled with exaggeration. Chinese numbers usually just laid out battle casualties, which is usually accurate, but non-battle casualty numbers are hard to find.

One of the biggest discrepancy in Chinese casualty number is just how many died in non-battle situations. In UN estimates, Chinese causality number always included death by air and artillery strikes in Chinese rear areas, which the Chinese themselves excluded in their figures as non-battle casualties. Currently, most of the scholar approach to the Chinese casualty number issue is to use Chinese government figure by default unless proven to be grossly incorrect.

Raider, how you please give a figure of battle casulties of US, China, SK, NK? I mean a number that you think is pretty accurate? Im really confused about which source is reliable...

Chinese numbers should be more accurate.
US, UN forces spent most of the time retreating to the South, how would they have access to battlegrounds especially in the North to do any accurate count of Chinese casualties ?
Even today with all the advances in technologies, you see the way NATO count casualties. Drop a bomb on a village in Iraq, drone attack on a wedding party in Afghanistan, they basically classify the very rough estimates of deaths as 'militants'.
One can only imagine what it was like in the 1950s. Don't be surprised most of the casualties were Korean villagers.

I cannot give an correct figure because I never did a tally, but there are "holes" in Korean War histories that can put everybody's numbers into doubts.

Hole #1: All US Army record from November 1950 to January 1951 was absent. (During the UN retreat from North Korea, a lot of intel and documents were destroyed.)

Hole #2: Non-battle casualties numbers from PVA was never completely disclosed. (Just how many Chinese did froze to death in Korea? What about truck driver and railway engineer casualties?)

Hole #3: All South Korean Army record from 1950 to 1951 was completely absent. (South Korean DoD later asked permission to translate US records to fill the information gap)

Hole #4: North Korean never disclosed anything.

So technically there are no "correct" numbers. The current approach by scholars is just use government published numbers on casualties. To quote Kevin Mahoney in the book Formidable enemies : the North Korean and Chinese Soldier in the Korean War, the current Chinese casualty number published by Chinese government can be taken at face value, with the possibility that the number could be adjusted in the future.

P.S. For US casualty numbers, Richard E. Ecker's database is the most authoritative.

during the mid-90's there's a book title "in mortal combat" the author interview several Chinere lorean war veteran, to them the biggest problem was medic and food,as the Chinese force push southward, the logistic supply become a problem. one veteran recall , battalion size armies were given only 3 day food supply in 8 day march, in bitter cold, the veteran (i forget his name) that there march constant being harass by aerial attack,
in one occasion he nearly got killed by a napalm bomb,other such frost bite and hunger,by the time they reach there line only half of them remain.

True. The main source of nourishment for Chinese soldiers during the Korean was the "fried wheat" or chao mian. This led to the problem of vitamin deficiency and led to night blindness in many soldiers. However Chinese soldiers combated the problem by drinking pine-needle tea, which is a method used by outdoors men today.

Re: Two Korea's... a 21st Century Problem

raider1001 said:

That logic only work if North Korea recognize South Korea as a separate nation, like Mao recognize Taiwan as within US sphere of influence. If North Korea started to "reclaim" South Korean and use nukes "defensively" against US "invaders" stationed in South Korea, yeah, then in a twisted logic the North Korea is using the nukes "defensively" to "protect itself". When Mao made the similar argument to Khrushchev by using nukes "defensively" against US troops stationed on "Chinese territory only" a.k.a Taiwan included...how the hell do you think the others is gonna respond?

Click to expand...

The same arguments can be said of the other side. Like the MacArthur didn't wants to use nukes on China just so the West was can reclaim China under their influence? There were four or five instances that the US consider using nukes on China during the 50s and 60s. Like China didn't have good reason to want nukes. Fact is nukes protect you from being attacked. South Korea doesn't want reunification? They're the ones that want regime change. So what the difference between the North and South? You nake it sound so one-sided. Any one can make those arguments. And did China threaten or use nukes which why the Soviets wouldn't give the bomb? Again unfounded. Like the Soviets were so considerate for China not to start anything while they were stirring up trouble for the US in Europe at the same time. That argument doesn't hold weight.

Plus if you read the media, they're saying all this is about North Korea wanting food from the West. Did China ever attack anyone because they wanted food from them? No.

Re: Two Korea's... a 21st Century Problem

AssassinsMace said:

The same arguments can be said of the other side. Like the MacArthur didn't wants to use nukes on China just so the West was can reclaim China under their influence? There were four or five instances that the US consider using nukes on China during the 50s and 60s. Like China didn't have good reason to want nukes. Fact is nukes protect you from being attacked. South Korea doesn't want reunification? They're the ones that want regime change. So what the difference between the North and South? You nake it sound so one-sided. Any one can make those arguments. And did China threaten or use nukes which why the Soviets wouldn't give the bomb? Again unfounded. Like the Soviets were so considerate for China not to start anything while they were stirring up trouble for the US in Europe at the same time. That argument doesn't hold weight.

Plus if you read the media, they're saying all this is about North Korea wanting food from the West. Did China ever attack anyone because they wanted food from them? No.

Click to expand...

Let me put it this way, North Korea wants nuke to protect itself from what? Just plain protection or as protect itself from others that tries to interfere in an invasion? The problem is not whether it is okay for North Korea to have nukes for protection, the problem is that it still did not prove that nukes will only be used for protection. US did considered using nukes against China, either against the nuclear facilities or to nuke the mass Chinese forces that were overrunning Korea or Taiwan. But none of the times the nukes were considered in invading China (unless US plan to nuke Chinese forces landing on Taiwan counts).

You bring up MacArthur, did you even bother to check the fact that the nuclear weapon authorization belongs to Truman and Truman only? And that MacArthur was sacked for making too much stupid comments like this? And the fact that Chinese leadership had extremely hard time understanding that MacArthuer and Truman does not think alike?